John May

The defendants, including CTV and several journalists, brought a motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action arising from a W5 investigative report on dog sledding operations.

The court granted the motion, finding that the expression related to a matter of public interest.

The plaintiff failed to establish that its defamation claim had substantial merit, as the impugned broadcasts did not identify the plaintiff or lacked essential elements of defamation.

Furthermore, the plaintiff could not show that the defendants lacked valid defences of justification, fair comment, and responsible communication, nor that the harm suffered outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression.

Following a hearing, the parties agreed that there would be no order as to costs.

The Divisional Court endorsed the agreement, making no order as to costs.

The applicants raised a preliminary objection seeking the recusal of Leiper J. from the panel on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicants argued that Leiper J.'s involvement in two prior decisions involving the same parties, including a refusal to grant a stay that was later partially reversed by the Court of Appeal, met the threshold for disqualification.

The Divisional Court dismissed the objection, finding that the applicants failed to meet the heavy burden of rebutting the strong presumption of judicial impartiality, noting that prior involvement alone does not establish bias and there were no allegations of improper conduct.

The moving parties sought a stay of an Animal Care Review Board decision confirming a $1.5 million statement of account issued by Animal Welfare Services for the care of approximately 200 seized dogs.

Without a stay, the dogs would be forfeited to the Crown.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that the balance of convenience favoured the moving parties, as refusing the stay would render related ongoing proceedings moot and destroy their unique herd of dogs.

The motion for a stay pending judicial review was granted.

The moving parties, operators of a dog-sledding business, sought to set aside a single judge's decision refusing to extend a stay of an Animal Care Review Board costs order regarding the care of their removed dogs.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding no error in the motions judge's balance of convenience analysis, which heavily weighed the mounting public costs of caring for the dogs.

The panel also rejected a request to disqualify one of its members based on prior involvement in a related judicial review, and admitted but gave no weight to fresh evidence of a new statutory application for the dogs' return.

The applicants brought a motion to set aside a previous decision and to admit fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court reserved its decision on the motion.

However, the court ordered that the stay of the Animal Care Review Board's decision be continued pending the release of the court's decision on the motion.

The parties were also directed to advise the court of any resolution reached at an upcoming board hearing.

The moving parties sought to continue a stay of an Animal Care Review Board decision requiring them to pay $505,760 in boarding costs for 200 sled dogs seized under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried and irreparable harm (forfeiture of the dogs), the balance of convenience favoured the respondent.

The court noted the mounting public cost of boarding the dogs, estimated at $4 million, and the moving parties' inability to pay.

The motion to continue the stay was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of two decisions by the Animal Care Review Board regarding their sled dog business.

The Board had confirmed orders requiring the applicants to improve living conditions for their dogs, including lengthening tethers and remediating doghouses.

When the applicants failed to comply, animal welfare inspectors removed approximately 230 dogs.

The Board subsequently ordered that most of the dogs not be returned until the applicants complied with the orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications for judicial review, finding the Board's interpretation of the tethering requirements reasonable and concluding that the removal and retention of the dogs were justified due to the applicants' ongoing non-compliance with the minimum standards of care.

The moving parties, operators of a dog sledding business, sought a stay of an Animal Care Review Board decision requiring them to pay over $500,000 for the costs of care of over 100 sled dogs removed by animal welfare authorities.

The stay was sought pending the determination of two related applications for judicial review challenging the underlying compliance and removal orders.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm due to the potential forfeiture and euthanization of the specially trained dogs, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay to prevent the judicial reviews from becoming moot.

The court granted the stay on terms, including a requirement for future submissions on financial security for ongoing care costs.

The appellant distributor appealed a Tribunal decision finding it had improperly terminated a dealership agreement with the respondent dealer.

The Tribunal had awarded damages and costs to the dealer.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal correctly found that Regulation 123/06 under the Farm Implements Act applied retrospectively to the agreement.

The majority held that the Tribunal's findings regarding the interpretation of the agreement and the unreasonableness of the distributor's refusal to renew were questions of mixed fact and law, and therefore not subject to appeal.

However, the Court unanimously set aside the Tribunal's award of damages for obsolete assets as an error of law, and quashed the costs award, remitting it to the Tribunal for reconsideration.