Laura Brown

The appellants, Charles McVety and Canada Christian College, appealed a motion judge's decision to dismiss their anti-SLAPP motion against a defamation action brought by Kory Teneycke and Rubicon Strategy Inc. The defamation claim alleged that McVety publicly stated Teneycke acted in a conflict of interest regarding Ontario's vaccine passport policy and profited from it, and that Teneycke was prejudiced against Christians.

The motion judge found substantial merit to the defamation action and that the appellants had no viable defences, partly due to potential malice, and that the public interest favored allowing the action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's analysis of the claim's merits and defences, and while agreeing the balancing analysis was flawed, a fresh analysis led to the same conclusion that the public interest in allowing the action outweighed the public interest in protecting the appellants' expression, given the low quality and malicious motivation of the speech.

The request for leave to appeal costs was also dismissed.

The applicant, a victim of fraud, sought orders to freeze and trace funds amounting to 290,000 Euros ($430,000 CDN) that were fraudulently wired to a bank account held by one of the respondents.

The applicant also sought a sealing order for a previous related application containing personal information.

The court found the applicant's affidavit credible and determined that the funds were paid under a mistake of fact, making them repayable.

The court granted all relief sought by the applicant, including the freezing and tracing orders, and the sealing of the prior application.

Dr. Covant, a veterinarian, appealed a Divisional Court decision that upheld a finding of professional misconduct by the College of Veterinarians of Ontario's Discipline Committee.

The misconduct stemmed from re-selling large quantities of veterinary drugs to human pharmacies, which violated an amended regulation (s. 33(2)(d) of R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 1093) restricting such sales to "reasonably limited quantities" for "temporary shortages." Covant argued the regulation was unconstitutionally vague and/or overbroad, the misconduct finding was erroneous, and the imposed penalty was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, affirming that the regulation was not impermissibly vague or overbroad, the professional misconduct was properly established given Covant's ongoing sub-distribution enterprise, and the one-month suspension and costs award were fit and reasonable.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support against the respondent father, who is serving a life sentence in prison.

The parties disputed the respondent's income, with the applicant claiming it was $243,531 based on funds received during the relationship, and the respondent claiming it was $50,000 from prison work, rental properties, and sports betting.

The court rejected both figures, finding the respondent's disclosure unreliable but the applicant's lifestyle analysis excessive.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $100,000 and directed the parties to calculate support based on that amount, with spousal support at the mid-range of the SSAGs.

This endorsement addresses the jurisdiction of a judge in a civil settlement conference to order the transfer of a file from the civil division to the family division of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The applicant had initiated a civil application for partition and sale of a jointly owned home, despite unresolved family law issues.

The respondent sought to transfer the matter to family court.

The court found that the application was in the wrong forum, constituting "forum shopping" and splitting issues.

Citing Rules of Civil Procedure 50.13 and relevant case law, the judge confirmed the power to make procedural orders, including transfers, at a case conference without a formal motion, provided informal notice is given.

The matter was transferred to the family division, and a family settlement conference was ordered.

The applicant's counsel's aggressive objection and the applicant's inadequate attendance were noted.