Sarah Jamshidimoghadam

The appellants, operators of a long-term care home, appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their defamation action under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (anti-SLAPP motion).

The respondent had posted approximately 100 tweets over three years on anonymous accounts alleging elder abuse and serious wrongdoing at the facility.

The motion judge found the tweets related to a matter of public interest and dismissed the action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge made reviewable errors in her section 137.1(4) analysis by failing to properly assess whether the defamation claim had merit and whether the appellants had suffered harm, and by assuming the respondent's expression had value without conducting the necessary preliminary analysis.

The appellant developer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering Tarion Warranty Corporation to pay $1,736,271.23 to the respondent condominium corporation for major structural defects in an underground parking garage.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in finding a major structural defect, improperly extended the seven-year warranty, failed to find the claims were released, and improperly awarded damages for portions of the garage owned by others.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Tribunal's assessment of the expert evidence, contractual interpretation, or damages award, noting that the garage was a fully integrated structure requiring comprehensive repair.

The respondents sought public funding for Jewish day schools in Ontario, arguing that the failure to fund them breached their Charter rights under ss. 2(a) and 15(1).

Ontario brought a motion to strike the application on the basis that the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Adler definitively decided the issues.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding a reasonable prospect of meeting the Bedford/Carter test for revisiting binding precedent.

On appeal, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the application, holding that the motion judge erred in relying on facts and circumstances that were not new and in questioning the force of the majority analysis in Adler.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying its claim for major structural defect (MSD) warranty coverage for its underground parking garage.

The builder argued the claim was barred by previous settlement agreements.

The Tribunal found the previous agreements only applied to first and second-year warranty claims and did not release future MSD claims.

On the merits, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's structural engineers and found that the builder's failure to install continuous expansion joints throughout the structure and the use of defective concrete resulting in delamination constituted a major structural defect under the function test.

The Tribunal ordered Tarion to pay the appellant $1,565,313.43 for the cost of repairs to the garage.

The appellant, Grandfield Homes (Kenton) Ltd., appealed a lower court decision that denied its request for a trial on damages beyond forfeited deposits in a failed residential real estate transaction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding that the claim for additional damages was not sufficiently pleaded in the notice of application or supporting evidence.

The court emphasized that relief sought must be precisely stated in pleadings and that counsel's confirmation during cross-examination that additional damages were not sought in the application was binding.

The court also agreed that ordering a separate trial on damages would result in an unnecessary bifurcation and multiplicity of proceedings, causing potential prejudice to the respondent.

Tarion Warranty Corporation brought a motion to adjourn a scheduled 10-day hearing regarding a major structural defect warranty claim and to instead hold a one-day motion to dismiss the appeal based on a prior settlement agreement.

The appellant opposed the motion.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that an adjournment would prejudice the appellant and that Tarion had failed to raise the settlement issue in a timely manner.

The Tribunal ordered that the settlement issue be determined as a preliminary matter at the commencement of the scheduled hearing.

The applicant sought a declaration of entitlement to a deposit paid by the respondent under a contract to purchase a new build home, and a direction for a trial on further damages.

The respondent refused to close, alleging misrepresentations regarding square footage and finish quality.

The court found no valid misrepresentations, enforcing the entire agreement clause against the respondent despite claims of limited English and alleged verbal assurances.

The court declared the applicant entitled to retain the $502,500 deposit, finding a 15% deposit not unconscionable.

However, the court dismissed the applicant's request for a trial on further damages, noting it was not sought in the initial application and would lead to inefficient bifurcation of proceedings.

The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from enforcing two vendor take-back mortgages on a commercial property and the plaintiffs' residential property.

The plaintiffs alleged they were induced to purchase the property based on inaccurate sales figures and that the transaction was fraudulent.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm that could not be quantified monetarily and that the balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

The decision reinforced the principle that mortgagees should be allowed to enforce contractual rights unless fraud related to the mortgage itself is proven, and noted the plaintiffs' apparent inability to honour their undertaking as to damages.

The appellant law firm appealed the dismissal of its application seeking to set a market rate for lease renewal and compensation for renovations, and also sought leave to appeal a costs order from a prior cross-motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's findings that the respondent landlord did not breach its duty to act in good faith during lease negotiations, that the expert evidence was properly considered, and that compensation for renovations was not warranted.

The court also refused leave to appeal the costs order from the cross-motion, finding no strong grounds to interfere with the motion judge's discretion.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of agreements governing the distribution of settlement funds and the reimbursement of litigation costs following the settlement of two professional negligence actions against KPMG.

The appellants, Benzer Ltd. and Rajneesh Mathur, argued that the application judge erred in denying their reimbursement for costs under an Assignment Agreement, contending that the phrase "if any" regarding legal costs awarded should not apply when no costs were awarded.

They also argued that security for costs funds should be included in "net amounts recovered" for calculating their 15% compensation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's interpretation that the "if any" clause was valid and that security for costs were litigation expenses, not "net amounts recovered."

The applicant sought an order directing the release of funds held in trust following the settlement of two professional negligence actions against KPMG.

The parties disputed the interpretation of an Assignment Agreement and a Mutual Release regarding the distribution of the settlement funds and the return of monies paid into court as security for costs.

The court applied principles of contractual interpretation, finding that the Release did not bar the application, the respondent was not entitled to reimbursement of litigation expenses in the absence of a costs award, and the security for costs funds were not 'net amounts recovered' from the litigation.

The court ordered the funds distributed according to its interpretation of the agreements, apportioning the remaining settlement funds equally between the two actions.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for lack of jurisdiction.

The parties were co-workers and unionized teachers subject to a collective agreement.

The plaintiff had sued the defendant for defamation, intentional interference with economic relations, and intentional infliction of mental distress arising from workplace harassment complaints.

The court applied the exclusive jurisdiction model from Weber, finding that the essential character of the dispute was workplace-related and arose from the interpretation, application, administration, or violation of the collective agreement.

The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction, as the dispute must be resolved through the grievance arbitration process.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied benefits beyond the Minor Injury Guideline and scheduled multiple s. 44 insurer's examinations, which the applicant failed to attend.

The insurer sought to dismiss the application under s. 55 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal held that the applicant could proceed with claims related to the MIG, a chronic pain assessment, and chiropractic treatment because he had attended the relevant physiatry examination.

However, the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding with his income replacement benefit claim due to his failure to attend reasonably necessary psychological and neurological examinations without a valid excuse.