Robert Rastorp

The plaintiff sued her former manager for defamation after he provided a negative employment reference to a prospective employer, resulting in a revoked job offer.

The court found that while the manager's statements were defamatory, they were made on an occasion of qualified privilege.

The plaintiff failed to prove that the manager was motivated by malice.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's alternative tort claims as they were based on the same facts as the defamation claim.

The action was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicants, as landlords and mortgagees in possession, sought declaratory relief concerning a commercial lease and possession of the premises.

The central issue was whether the lease had expired in January 2013 or remained in force pursuant to alleged amendments extending the term and providing automatic renewal.

The court found that no proper notice of the purported amendments had been provided to the applicants after they became landlords.

As a result, the amendments were not binding, the lease terminated on January 14, 2013, and the tenant became an overholding tenant subject to a month‑to‑month tenancy.

The month‑to‑month tenancy was validly terminated under s. 28 of the Commercial Tenancies Act, entitling the applicants to possession and a writ of possession.

The respondent husband moved to stay a divorce proceeding and set aside an ex parte Mareva injunction on the basis that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction under s. 3(1) of the Divorce Act.

The court found that the applicant spouse had not been ordinarily resident in Ontario for the required one‑year period preceding the application and had instead been living with the family in China.

The court also concluded there was no real and substantial connection to Ontario sufficient to ground corollary relief under the Family Law Act.

In related proceedings concerning the parties’ children, the court declined to order their return to China despite concerns regarding their removal, emphasizing the need for a full evidentiary record before determining custody issues.