Kaitlin Soye

The court determined costs following two anti-SLAPP motions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The defendant broadcaster, having successfully dismissed the defamation claim against it, was awarded costs on a full indemnity basis, though the requested amount was reduced to $500,000 plus disbursements due to the motion's excessive complexity.

The plaintiff, having successfully defeated the defendant university's novel anti-SLAPP motion regarding a negligence claim, was awarded partial indemnity costs of $222,000, as the university's motion lacked the characteristics of a true SLAPP suit.

The defendants, CBC and Trent University, brought anti-SLAPP motions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiffs' $210 million defamation and negligence action.

The action arose from a Marketplace report alleging the plaintiffs' chicken sandwiches contained only 50% chicken based on DNA tests conducted by Trent University.

The court granted CBC's motion, finding that while the defamation claim had substantial merit, CBC had a valid defence of responsible communication and the public interest in protecting investigative journalism outweighed the plaintiffs' private harm.

The court dismissed Trent University's motion, holding that the negligence claim regarding faulty laboratory testing did not arise from an expression relating to a matter of public interest and was therefore not subject to dismissal under the anti-SLAPP provisions.

The Plaintiffs (Subway) sought a sealing order for 10 documents in a defamation action, comprising six financial documents and four private contracts.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) opposed the motion, citing the open courts principle.

The court applied the Sierra Club test, requiring a serious risk to an important interest and a balancing of salutary and deleterious effects.

The court found that the financial documents met the test due to detailed, commercially sensitive sales data that could provide competitors with an unearned advantage, and ordered them sealed.

However, the four private agreements (supplier and internal corporate structure agreements) were not sealed, as the potential harm from their disclosure was deemed speculative and did not outweigh the public interest in open courts.

No costs were awarded due to the mixed success and public interest nature of the opposition.

The appellant, charged with driving with excess alcohol, appealed her conviction.

The appeal court found the trial judge's reasons inadequate for appellate review, specifically noting failures to address the officer's credibility and reliability, a defence witness's evidence, the application of the W.(D.) principles beyond the first prong, and the admissibility of the appellant's statement to the Intoxilyzer operator under *Edgar* and *Laird*.

The trial judge misapplied the burden of proof by focusing solely on the appellant's credibility.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial ordered.