Kaley Pulfer

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action for delay under the Langenecker test.

The action had been outstanding for eleven years but was a relatively straightforward wrongful dismissal claim for a one-year employee.

The court found the delay was inordinate but not inexcusable, as the plaintiff had adequately explained the turnover of counsel and procedural complications.

Even assuming the delay was inexcusable, the court found no prejudice to the defendants' ability to have a fair trial, as discovery transcripts preserved evidence and previous findings on the amendment motion had already rejected prejudice claims.

The defendants' motion was dismissed and the plaintiff's cross-motion to restore the action to the trial list was granted with a peremptory timetable imposed.

This is a costs decision following the dismissal of a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

The plaintiff developer sought $300,000 in damages for defamation and trespass against a local resident and engineering student who raised environmental, social, and safety concerns about a mall redevelopment.

The court dismissed the claim as a SLAPP and awarded the defendant full-indemnity costs.

This decision addresses the quantum of costs, with the defendant seeking $156,394.54 and the plaintiff arguing for a cap of $100,000.

The court awarded the full amount sought, finding it fair and reasonable given the circumstances, including the defendant's reasonable settlement offers, the plaintiff's expansion of the motion scope, and consistency with other anti-SLAPP costs awards.

This decision concerns an anti-SLAPP motion brought by Pierre Roy, a student and local resident, against Sheridan Retail Inc., a developer redeveloping Sheridan Mall in Mississauga.

The developer sued Roy for defamation, inducing breach of contract, interference with economic relations, and trespass after he raised environmental, social, and safety concerns about the redevelopment.

The court found the lawsuit to be a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) aimed at silencing Roy’s public expression.

The court dismissed the developer’s claim, refused to allow the developer to “prune” its claim to trespass only, and awarded Roy $25,000 in damages and full-indemnity costs.

The appellant, a rapper performing under the name Avalanche the Architect, appealed the dismissal of his libel action against a newspaper and its reporter.

The action was struck as statute-barred under the Libel and Slander Act.

The core issue was whether the Act's notice and limitation periods apply to online newspaper articles.

The court held that the Act applies to online versions of newspapers, that the limitation period begins when the libel comes to the plaintiff's knowledge, and that the plaintiff's initial complaint did not constitute proper notice under the Act as it merely complained of factual errors without asserting libel.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the Toronto Transit Commission from implementing random drug and alcohol testing for safety-sensitive employees pending the outcome of a policy grievance arbitration.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as any privacy breaches or wrongful dismissals could be compensated with damages.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the respondent due to the significant public interest in transit safety and evidence of a workplace drug and alcohol problem.

The motion for an injunction was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action, primarily focusing on a defamation claim, due to the plaintiffs' failure to provide the statutory notice required by s. 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act.

The court dismissed the libel claim of one plaintiff, Nina Willis, finding that compliance with the notice requirement is a condition precedent and its absence constitutes an absolute bar.

However, the motion to dismiss was denied for her remaining claims and all claims of the other plaintiffs, as it was not plain and obvious that these claims, including potential claims akin to the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, could not succeed.

The court also declined to dismiss claims for plaintiffs who had not been properly served with the motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment claiming unjust enrichment and seeking to enforce a guarantee against the defendants after mistakenly depositing over $230,000 into the corporate defendant's bank account.

The individual defendant used the funds to pay personal and corporate debts.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed regarding the quantification of the benefit to the individual defendant and the enforceability of the guarantee and terms of the merchant agreement.