Justin Heimpel

The respondent, a retired teacher, commenced a defamation action against the school board and its chair after the chair stopped her presentation at a public meeting and subsequently made media statements characterizing her comments as transphobic and questioning the right of trans people to exist.

The appellants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, allowing the defamation claim to proceed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that while the motion judge erred in his weighing analysis by failing to consider the public interest in the appellants' speech, a fresh weighing demonstrated that the harm suffered by the respondent outweighed the public interest in the chair's speech, which had mischaracterized her actual remarks.

The appeal was dismissed.

Stahle Construction Inc. appealed a trial judgment ordering it to pay general damages, out-of-pocket expenses, and costs to its former employee, Roberto Soave, for improper termination of long-term disability (LTD) coverage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's finding that Mr. Soave was disabled and eligible for LTD benefits prior to a car accident, despite Stahle's arguments regarding evidentiary burden and pleading.

The court found no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's mixed findings of fact and law regarding disability and upheld the decision to determine the remitted issue.

The matter was remitted by the Court of Appeal to determine if the plaintiff qualified for long-term disability benefits under his employer's benefits booklet as of January 27, 2014.

The plaintiff argued he was disabled due to a severe hernia condition that prevented him from performing his duties as a site superintendent.

The defendant argued there was insufficient medical evidence of disability.

The court found the plaintiff credible, noted his condition was corroborated by medical records, and concluded he met the definition of disability during the qualifying period.

The court ruled the plaintiff qualified for long-term disability benefits.

Stahle Construction Inc. appealed a judgment ordering it to pay damages to Roberto Soave for improperly terminating his long-term disability benefits.

The trial judge found Soave was still employed and entitled to benefits.

On appeal, Stahle challenged the trial judge's refusal to admit an insurance policy, the weight given to an insurer's denial letter, and the interpretation of the Mercon Booklet regarding benefit eligibility.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decisions on evidence admission and weight but found palpable and overriding errors in the interpretation of the Mercon Booklet's eligibility requirements for long-term disability benefits.

The court clarified that eligibility depended on disability at the time work ceased or becoming totally disabled during a leave if required by law, not merely continuation of coverage.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the matter remitted to the Superior Court for reconsideration of Soave's eligibility based on the correct interpretation.

The plaintiff, Songbird Life Sciences Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants, Connectus Services Ltd. and Connectus Services Ltd. C.O.B. as Connectus Global, for unpaid invoices related to the supply of COVID-19 testing products.

The defendants admitted the debt but argued that a subsequent payment plan constituted a new contract and that they suffered damages due to the plaintiff's refusal to continue supply, which should be set off.

The court found no new consideration for the payment plan to be a new contract and no evidence of damages for set-off.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

The defendant, Northfield Trim and Door Inc., brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's counsel of record, Irwin Duncan, on the basis of a conflict of interest.

Duncan had previously served as corporate solicitor for the defendant and drafted key agreements (Shareholders' Agreement and Employment Agreement) now at issue in the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action.

The court found that Duncan breached his duties of commitment and candour by terminating his retainer with the defendant without notice to act for the plaintiff in a related matter.

The court concluded that the retainers were sufficiently related, inferring that confidential information was imparted, and that Duncan owed an ongoing fiduciary duty to the defendant.

The motion was granted, and Duncan was removed as counsel.

The bankrupt, his father, and a creditor (his former partner) brought overlapping motions in a bankruptcy proceeding.

The court ordered equitable set-off of multiple costs awards made in family and bankruptcy proceedings between the bankrupt and the creditor, effective September 28, 2018.

The court dismissed the father's claim for a charge over the balance of the costs award, finding that solicitor's liens and charging orders do not apply to non-lawyers who fund litigation.

The balance of the costs award was ordered payable to the bankruptcy trustee.

The court also dismissed the creditor's request for a stay of enforcement and declined to dismiss the creditor's civil action for delay at this stage.

The defendants brought a motion seeking dismissal or stay of certain claims, setting aside service on individual defendants, and striking specific pleadings.

The court struck claims made by trust plaintiffs (with leave to add trustees), unjust enrichment claims (with leave to amend), breach of trust claims (with leave to amend), and pleadings regarding pre-contractual representations (with leave to amend).

Crucially, the oppression remedy claims against all defendants were struck without leave due to a lack of jurisdiction, as neither corporate defendant was governed by the OBCA, and service on the individual defendants was set aside.

The plaintiffs were granted 30 days to amend their Statement of Claim for the claims struck with leave.

This decision addresses a costs motion following a successful summary judgment motion in favour of Frank Hieblinger, a defendant by counterclaim.

Hieblinger sought full indemnity costs of $57,604.21, while Lorenzo D’Urso, the plaintiff by counterclaim, argued for partial indemnity costs of $17,909.06.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to Hieblinger, finding D’Urso’s $11 million counterclaim against Hieblinger to be entirely baseless, frivolous, and an abuse of the litigation process, constituting reprehensible conduct.

The court also found the quantum of costs sought by Hieblinger to be reasonable given the complexity, importance of the matter, and D'Urso's conduct in unnecessarily lengthening the proceedings and failing to respond to settlement offers.

Frank Hieblinger moved for summary judgment to dismiss a counterclaim brought against him by Lorenzo D’Urso.

D’Urso argued it was an inappropriate partial summary judgment motion.

The court found it was a rare case where partial summary judgment was appropriate, as it would dispose of the action against Hieblinger entirely without risk of inconsistent findings or undue delay.

The court found D’Urso failed to raise any genuine issue against Hieblinger, whose role was limited to executing assigned tasks without decision-making authority.

D’Urso's own cross-examination admissions negated his allegations.

The motion was granted, and the counterclaim against Hieblinger was dismissed.

The Receiver of a bankrupt masonry contractor sought directions to distribute remaining funds to a secured creditor.

A subcontractor opposed the distribution, arguing the funds were subject to a deemed trust under the Construction Lien Act and excluded from the bankruptcy estate.

The court found that the funds did not meet the certainty of subject matter required for a trust under general trust principles, as all funds were commingled in a single account.

The court ordered the funds distributed to the secured creditor.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim arising from alleged breach of a non‑competition agreement and related fiduciary duties, or alternatively partial summary judgment limiting damages.

The dispute involved whether the defendant employee had signed a non‑competition agreement, whether such an agreement would be enforceable without explicit geographic or activity limits, and whether the defendant owed fiduciary duties to the plaintiff.

The court found that significant factual disputes and credibility issues, including allegations the defendant competed with the plaintiff while still employed and interfered with a business relationship, required a full trial.

Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.

The motion was dismissed except that the defendants were granted leave to amend their statement of defence.

Following a trial where the plaintiff obtained a modest judgment significantly below both the amount claimed and the defendant’s earlier offer to settle, the court determined costs.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs despite failing to provide a Bill of Costs or Costs Outline and having pursued an inflated claim inconsistent with discovery evidence.

The court also noted the plaintiff’s blanket denial of a formal Request to Admit, which undermined the purpose of narrowing issues.

Applying Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court declined to award the plaintiff costs and instead awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs from the date of its unaccepted settlement offer.