3 total
Defamation action dismissed under anti-SLAPP legislation; expression regarding political candidate's business ties protected.
The defendants brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action arising from a blog post made during a federal election.
The blog post criticized a political candidate's association with the plaintiff corporation.
The court found the expression related to a matter of public interest.
The plaintiff failed to establish that its claim had substantial merit, that the defendants had no valid defence, or that the harm suffered outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression.
The action was dismissed with full indemnity costs awarded to the defendants.
Appeal dismissed; arbitrator's frustration with counsel's delays did not amount to bias or deny a fair hearing.
The appellant appealed an arbitration order that denied her further weekly income benefits and required her to pay half of the insurer's arbitration expenses.
The appellant argued she was denied a fair hearing due to the arbitrator's procedural rulings (dismissing an interpreter and refusing to consider a second accident), her counsel's incompetence, and the arbitrator's alleged bias stemming from frustration with her counsel.
The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding that the absence of an interpreter did not prejudice the appellant, the arbitrator correctly refused to hear the unmediated second accident claim, the Charter right to effective counsel does not apply to private economic disputes, and the arbitrator's frustration with counsel's delays did not amount to bias.
Claim for weekly accident benefits dismissed due to lack of credibility and surveillance evidence contradicting disability.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until they were terminated by the insurer.
She applied for arbitration seeking ongoing weekly benefits under sections 13(1) and 13(8) of the Schedule.
The arbitrator found the applicant was not a credible witness, noting inconsistencies in her testimony and surveillance evidence showing her performing physical activities with relative ease.
The arbitrator concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform her essential tasks and dismissed the claim for weekly benefits, but awarded the applicant her arbitration expenses.
