Mark Stewart

On a summary judgment motion arising from a large-scale online defamation campaign, the court held that the moving parties established on a balance of probabilities that the responding party authored the impugned internet postings.

The court applied the defamation test, found the postings defamatory as to each plaintiff, rejected the limitation defence based on discoverability under the Limitations Act, 2002, and found no genuine issue requiring a trial on liability.

The only issue directed to trial was quantum of damages.

Although the court found intentional breaches of the Anton Piller regime and accepted evidentiary spoliation and adverse inferences, the contempt relief was dismissed without prejudice for procedural reasons.

The appellant purchased a property from the respondent and later sought to void the transaction under s. 197(4) of the Environmental Protection Act, alleging it was not provided with a copy of a Director's Order requiring remedial work.

The application judge found that the respondent had provided the order, based on a holistic review of the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual inferences or his refusal to draw an adverse inference for a failure to call a specific witness.

The applicant purchaser sought to void a commercial real estate transaction and recover $5.913 million from the respondent vendor, claiming the vendor failed to provide a copy of an environmental Director's Order prior to closing as required by s. 197 of the Environmental Protection Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding on a balance of probabilities that the vendor did provide the order.

Alternatively, the court held that the applicant was estopped from voiding the transaction because its solicitors had represented to the vendor prior to closing that they had no outstanding concerns regarding the receipt of the order.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding his bicycle.

The insurer paid income replacement benefits for 104 weeks but terminated them, arguing the applicant did not meet the more stringent test of complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The arbitrator found the applicant, who was functionally illiterate in English and had a history of heavy physical labour, suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairments caused by the accident.

The arbitrator rejected the insurer's expert evidence that the applicant was malingering, finding instead that he was completely disabled from working.

The applicant was awarded ongoing income replacement benefits.

However, his claim for a multidisciplinary pain management program was dismissed as he failed to prove it was reasonable and necessary, given a previous similar program had not yielded further recovery.