Andrea Gonsalves

The Attorney General of Ontario appealed a Superior Court decision striking down provisions of the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020 and its Regulation.

The application judge had found that provisions invalidating consent to enter a farm obtained under false pretences violated the freedom of expression of animal rights activists seeking to conduct undercover exposés.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the activists' claim was a positive rights claim seeking access to private property on their own terms.

The Court found that the legislation did not substantially interfere with freedom of expression and that any limits were justified under section 1 of the Charter.

This endorsement addresses seven motions for leave to intervene in an appeal concerning the constitutionality of provisions of the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020, and its Regulation 701/20, which were found to violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to intervene to Animal Alliance, Centre for Free Expression (CFE), Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), and Labour Issues Coordinating Committee (LICC), finding they offered useful and distinct perspectives without unduly expanding the appeal's scope.

Motions by Justicia for Migrant Workers (J4MW), Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE), and Animal Environmental Legal Advocacy (AEL Advocacy) were dismissed, primarily due to concerns about expanding the issues or duplication of arguments.

The appellant appealed a decision denying him leave to amend his statement of claim in a libel action against the respondents.

The Divisional Court upheld the Associate Justice's decision, finding no error in the application of issue estoppel to prevent the addition of the appellant's professional corporation as a plaintiff, as a previous judge had already ruled the corporation had no tenable cause of action.

The court also upheld the refusal to allow scandalous and irrelevant paragraphs about a non-party, and the refusal to permit a claim for document production within the pleadings.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The applicants, animal rights activists, challenged the constitutionality of the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act and its Regulation.

They argued that provisions voiding consent to enter agricultural premises if obtained under false pretences, and provisions prohibiting interaction with farm animals, violated their Charter rights to freedom of expression and assembly.

The court found that the Act's prohibition on interacting with animals did not violate the Charter, as there is no constitutional right to physically interact with another's private property.

However, the court held that Section 9 of the Regulation, which penalized any false statement made to gain access to agricultural premises, unjustifiably infringed freedom of expression.

The court struck down Section 9 and certain limitations within the whistleblower and journalist exemptions, while upholding the rest of the Act.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $9,334.37 to the responding party.

The applicant brought an unsuccessful motion to transfer a defamation action commenced by the respondent in the Small Claims Court to the Superior Court of Justice, and to schedule a motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The court awarded costs to the successful respondent on a partial indemnity basis, finding that the applicant's conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity costs, but that the applicant should bear the costs of pursuing an unnecessary and unsuccessful motion.

Following the successful dismissal of the plaintiffs' defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the moving parties (defendants) sought full indemnity costs totalling over $1.1 million.

The court awarded full indemnity costs as requested, subject to a reduction for the costs of non-active counsel, clerks, or students.

The court also apportioned liability, finding one plaintiff jointly and severally liable only for costs related to the OMA dispute, while the other plaintiff was solely liable for costs related to the COVID-19 dispute.

The applicant, a defendant in a Small Claims Court defamation action regarding a Google review, brought a motion to transfer the action to the Superior Court of Justice.

The transfer was sought solely to enable the applicant to bring an anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, which the Court of Appeal previously ruled is unavailable in Small Claims Court.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the unavailability of a section 137.1 motion does not mean the action cannot be justly and fairly resolved in Small Claims Court, and that the traditional factors for transfer were not met.

The plaintiffs, two physicians, brought a $12 million defamation action against over 20 defendants, including other physicians, journalists, and media organizations.

The claims arose from two main disputes: an internal Ontario Medical Association (OMA) dispute and public criticism of the plaintiffs' controversial tweets regarding COVID-19, in which they opposed vaccines and lockdowns and promoted hydroxychloroquine.

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

The court found that the defendants' expressions related to matters of public interest and that the plaintiffs failed to show their claims had substantial merit or that the defendants lacked valid defences, such as fair comment and qualified privilege.

The court also found that the public interest in protecting the defendants' expressions far outweighed any harm suffered by the plaintiffs.

The action was dismissed against all defendants.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing her defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in finding a published photo was not defamatory and in upholding the respondents' defence of responsible communication.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge applied the proper legal framework from Pointes Protection and Grant v. Torstar, and her conclusions were entitled to deference.

The accused, a Taekwondo coach charged with sexual assault, applied for the production of interview recordings and notes held by the CBC involving one of the complainants.

The court determined that the common law O'Connor regime applied rather than the Criminal Code s. 278.1 regime, as the complainant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in statements made for a television documentary.

Balancing the accused's right to make full answer and defence against the media's freedom of the press under the Vice Media framework, the court ordered the CBC to produce limited, highly relevant excerpts of the interviews and notes.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the moving parties sought full indemnity costs of $141,573.04.

The court departed from the statutory presumption of full indemnity costs, finding the action lacked the hallmarks of a SLAPP, the plaintiff had substantial merit to her claim, and the moving parties had unnecessarily complicated the proceeding by initially pursuing summary judgment.

The court awarded the moving parties partial indemnity costs fixed at $55,603.21, matching the plaintiff's own partial indemnity costs calculation.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss a defamation action concerning publications about an illegal cannabis dispensary chain and its alleged connections to the plaintiff.

The court found the expression related to a matter of public interest.

While the plaintiff established substantial merit for some defamatory statements, the defendants successfully demonstrated a valid defence of responsible communication.

The court found the defendants' verification efforts diligent and the inclusion of statements justifiable.

Consequently, the motion was granted, and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff and defendants were neighbours involved in a bitter dispute over a property line, a fence, and alleged defamation.

After most claims were resolved, abandoned, or rendered moot by the sale of both properties, the plaintiff sought summary judgment for $1,412.50 representing the cost of removing and replacing a portion of the fence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the local bylaw did not entitle the plaintiff to unilaterally hire a contractor and seek reimbursement.

As the plaintiff had abandoned the majority of her claims, the court dismissed the action entirely and awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs of $31,812.52.

In a class action for secondary market misrepresentation, the court approved a $1.275 million settlement, the proposed distribution plan, class counsel's fees of $357,000 plus disbursements, and an honorarium of $15,000 for the representative plaintiff.

The settlement was deemed fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the high risks and complexities of the litigation and the limited recovery range due to a CCAA order.

The court emphasized the need for exceptional contribution to justify a representative plaintiff's honorarium, which was found to be present in this case.

The plaintiff, Alex M. Bodnarchuk, brought a consent motion to certify a class action for settlement purposes and to obtain leave to proceed with a secondary market misrepresentation claim under the Ontario Securities Act against Guestlogix Inc., Brett Proud, and Patrick Leung.

The action alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding credit facilities and financial covenants.

The parties reached a settlement of $1,275,000.

The court granted leave, finding the action was brought in good faith and had a reasonable possibility of success for settlement purposes.

The court also certified the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes, finding all criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met.

The order approved the settlement notices and procedures for opt-outs and objections, and set a date for the settlement approval hearing.

The plaintiffs filed affidavits containing confidential information about a minor child (Student Q) and her family, breaching a prior confidentiality order (Penny Order).

The defendants and Student Q's family successfully moved to have these affidavits removed/redacted.

This endorsement addresses the costs of that motion.

The court found the plaintiffs' conduct reprehensible and deserving of reprimand, rejecting their arguments of inadvertence and access to justice without evidence of impecuniosity.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to Student Q's family, and reduced costs to the defendants, totaling $41,633.44, payable by the plaintiffs.

In a defamation action arising from a book alleging the plaintiff engaged in workplace sexual harassment, the defendants brought a motion to anonymize the non-party complainant who made the allegations.

The complainant was summoned as a witness for an upcoming Anti-SLAPP motion and feared reputational harm and privacy violations if identified.

Applying the Sierra Club test, the court granted the motion, finding that the complainant's privacy interests were high and the salutary effects of the order outweighed any deleterious effects on the open court principle.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board imposing a $155,000 administrative penalty for contraventions of the Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2010 related to the marketing of energy contracts.

On appeal, the appellant argued for the first time that the Board lost jurisdiction because the penalty was imposed outside the two-year limitation period in s. 112.5(2) of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the new limitation period issue, finding it would benefit from the specialized tribunal's interpretation and required factual findings.

The Court also dismissed the appellant's arguments that the Board misapprehended evidence and improperly found systemic training deficiencies, concluding there were no errors of law or jurisdiction.

The applicant, a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, sought judicial review of a disciplinary decision made by the party that fined him $50,000 for a rules violation.

The party brought a motion to quash the application for want of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, holding that political parties are private, voluntary associations.

Applying the factors from Air Canada v. Toronto Port Authority, the court concluded that the party's disciplinary decisions do not involve the exercise of state power and are therefore not subject to public law remedies like certiorari.