Ken Jones

The Law Society of Ontario appealed a Divisional Court decision that remitted a costs decision back to the Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division.

The respondent, a lawyer, had successfully defended against professional misconduct charges and sought costs against the Law Society under Rule 25.01 for 'wasted costs'.

The Hearing Division denied costs, but the Divisional Court found the investigation was procedurally unfair and one-sided.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Law Society's appeal, holding that while the Divisional Court erred in applying a procedural fairness framework, the Hearing Division erred in principle by taking a piecemeal approach to the Law Society's conduct and applying an overly rigid standard for wasted costs.

The matter was properly remitted for a holistic assessment of whether the Law Society's conduct caused wasted costs.

This endorsement addresses the costs of appeals and a cross-appeal that were previously dismissed.

The appellants proposed an aggregate payment of $300,000 as partial indemnity costs.

The respondents sought higher amounts, with one group seeking full indemnity.

The court found the amounts sought by the respondents to be reasonable and proportionate, noting cooperation among counsel and no duplication of effort.

The court awarded specific partial indemnity costs to each respondent group, totaling $549,082.93.

This is a complex set of appeals concerning anti-SLAPP motions.

The appellants (Catalyst parties) appealed the dismissal of two of their actions (Defamation and Wolfpack actions) and the dismissal of their partial anti-SLAPP motion against a counterclaim.

The court dismissed all appeals, upholding the motion judge's findings that the Catalyst parties' actions were strategic attempts to silence critics, lacked substantial merit against some respondents, and that the public interest in protecting expression outweighed the public interest in continuing the proceedings.

The court also upheld the costs awards against the Catalyst parties, emphasizing the deterrent purpose of anti-SLAPP legislation against abusive litigation.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following a successful Rule 137.1 motion.

The appellant sought full indemnity costs of $273,111.22, which the respondent argued was excessive.

The court affirmed the statutory presumption under Rule 137.1(7) for full indemnity costs for a successful moving party, finding the award appropriate given the respondent's unsubstantiated $150 million counterclaim.

The court fixed costs at the amount claimed by the appellant.

The appellant, an employee, sued for wrongful dismissal.

The respondent counterclaimed for $150 million alleging breach of fiduciary duties.

The appellant moved to dismiss the counterclaim under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (anti-SLAPP), to dismiss it under r. 21 as frivolous/vexatious, for leave to amend his Statement of Claim for deferred bonuses, and for summary judgment.

The motion judge dismissed the anti-SLAPP motion and the leave to amend, and deferred the other motions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in interpreting "arises from" too narrowly for the anti-SLAPP motion, and that the counterclaim lacked substantial merit and valid defences.

The Court also found the motion judge erred in deferring the r. 21 and summary judgment motions, and in refusing leave to amend the Statement of Claim, as the bonus claim was an additional head of damages, not a new cause of action.

The counterclaim was dismissed, the amendment allowed, and the summary judgment motion returned to the lower court.

The appellant lawyer was the subject of a Law Society discipline proceeding that was ultimately dismissed after 56 days of hearing.

He sought costs against the Law Society, which were denied by the Hearing Division and the Appeal Division.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the court found that the Law Society's investigation was one-sided and procedurally unfair, and its positions on disclosure were unreasonable.

While the court upheld the finding that the proceeding was warranted at the outset, it set aside the decisions denying costs and remitted the matter to a new panel to determine whether the appellant is entitled to costs wasted by the Law Society's undue delay, negligence, or other default.

The Catalyst Parties brought actions for defamation, injurious falsehood, and conspiracy against various defendants, including media organizations, journalists, short sellers, and former borrowers, arising from the publication of a Wall Street Journal article and whistleblower complaints to the Ontario Securities Commission.

The defendants brought motions to dismiss the actions under the anti-SLAPP provisions of s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Catalyst Parties also brought a motion to dismiss four discrete defamation claims in a counterclaim brought by the West Face Parties.

The court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing the Defamation Action and the Wolfpack Action, finding that the expressions related to matters of public interest and that the public interest in protecting the expressions outweighed the public interest in allowing the actions to proceed, particularly given the Catalyst Parties' history of aggressive litigation and ethically dubious investigative tactics.

The court dismissed the Catalyst Parties' motion regarding the counterclaim, holding that partial anti-SLAPP motions are not permitted and that the counterclaim had substantial merit.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the January 11, 2021 decision of Boswell J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties.

Various defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim, which alleged civil conspiracy, defamation, intentional interference with economic relations, and unjust enrichment.

The court struck the claims for defamation, intentional interference with economic relations, and unjust enrichment against all applicants.

The civil conspiracy claim against one individual defendant (Moez Kassam) was struck, but the conspiracy claims against the remaining Anson Corporate Defendants, Adam Spears, Sunny Puri, ClaritySpring Inc., Nathan Anderson, Richard Molyneux, and Darryl Levitt were allowed to proceed.

The court also clarified that 'whistleblower' complaints to the Ontario Securities Commission are subject to absolute privilege and do not constitute the commencement of legal proceedings for the tort of abuse of process.

The applicants sought judicial review of three decisions by the Ontario Racing Commission and its Director, which resulted in the freezing of their purse accounts, a ten-year licence suspension, a $400,000 fine, and forfeiture of funds.

The applicants argued the Director lacked jurisdiction to freeze the accounts, the Commission failed to provide adequate particulars, the Vice-Chair lacked jurisdiction because his term expired before the merits hearing, and the merits decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court held that while the Director lacked jurisdiction to issue the freezing order, this did not invalidate the merits decision.

The court found the particulars were sufficient, the Vice-Chair retained jurisdiction under s. 4(3) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act having heard preliminary motions, and the merits decision was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

Following a merits decision finding multiple respondents liable for insider trading, tipping, and misleading Staff, the Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to determine appropriate sanctions and costs.

The Commission ordered permanent market prohibitions against the tipper and the most egregious trader, along with substantial administrative penalties and costs.

Other respondents received 15-year market prohibitions with limited carve-outs, administrative penalties, and disgorgement orders.

The Commission emphasized the importance of general and specific deterrence, particularly given the respondents' roles as registrants and their efforts to conceal their misconduct.

Enforcement Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion to admit into evidence selected excerpts from transcripts of compelled examinations of the respondents conducted pursuant to section 13 of the Securities Act.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing that the admission of compelled testimony violated the Securities Act, the Evidence Act, the Charter, and principles of procedural fairness.

One respondent also brought a cross-motion seeking a confidentiality order for the motion materials.

The Commission held that compelled testimony is admissible in regulatory proceedings and is not precluded by the Charter or the Evidence Act.

However, to ensure fairness and obtain the best evidence, the Commission directed that Staff may only tender the transcripts at the conclusion of its case for those respondents who do not undertake to testify, with a limited exception for proving allegations of misleading statements.

The Commission also granted the cross-motion, ordering the motion materials to remain confidential while releasing the decision publicly.