Sean Flaherty

The defendants brought a motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action as an impermissible SLAPP suit.

The plaintiff, a former municipal councillor, sued the defendants over a newspaper column that suggested he had a conflict of interest regarding a municipal development project.

The court found that while the defamation claim had substantial merit and the defences of fair comment and responsible communication lacked a real prospect of success, the plaintiff failed to prove that the harm he suffered outweighed the public interest in protecting the political expression.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff manufacturer sued the defendant metal processing company for the unpaid balance and extras on a contract for a custom Tension Leveling & Cut-To-Length Line.

The defendant counterclaimed for lost profits, alleging the machine failed to produce flat, memory-free sheets and could not process heavy gauge coils.

The court found that the defendant breached the contract by prematurely terminating the final acceptance testing, which was a condition precedent, thereby denying the plaintiff the opportunity to remedy any defects.

The plaintiff was awarded the contract balance and partial payment for extras, and the counterclaim was dismissed.

The Minister of Revenue appealed an order dismissing its motion to dismiss the respondent's tax appeal and granting a production order.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's order was interlocutory because it did not finally determine the scope of the appeal under the Retail Sales Tax Act.

As the order was interlocutory, jurisdiction to hear the appeal lay with the Divisional Court, not the Court of Appeal.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their action for delay pursuant to Rule 48.13(14).

The appellants had failed to comply with a timetable set at a first status hearing and could not provide a satisfactory explanation at a second status hearing.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's discretionary decision, noting that the appellants were only spurred into action by the issuance of status notices.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

At a status hearing under Rule 48.14(13), the plaintiffs sought to restore their breach of contract action to the trial list, while the defendants sought its dismissal for delay.

The action had been commenced in 2008 and was subject to multiple delays, missed timetables, and changes of counsel.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the nearly seven-year delay, particularly the period following an unsuccessful mediation in 2013.

As the plaintiffs failed to satisfy their onus to show cause why the action should not be dismissed, the court dismissed the action with costs.

Following a successful appeal, the parties were unable to resolve the costs of the motion below.

The Court of Appeal fixed the costs of the motion below at $4,500 in favour of the appellants, payable out of the proceeds of the sale of the property, noting that much of the time claimed related to necessary housekeeping matters regarding the sale.

The appellants appealed an order setting aside a commercial lease as fraudulent under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and directing the sale of a property free of the lease.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in deciding the fraudulent conveyance issue without proper notice or a trial, as the debtor's intent raised a triable issue.

Furthermore, the court held that the term 'encumbrancers' in the standard form order for partition and sale encompasses both existing and subsequent encumbrancers, meaning the property could not be sold free of the subsequently registered lease without the encumbrancer's consent.

The appellants, representing members of a church congregation who voted to leave the Anglican Diocese of Huron due to theological differences, appealed a trial decision declaring that the diocese held the church property and a charitable foundation in trust for the static parish, not the departing members.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that 'parish' refers to a static entity that continues in perpetuity regardless of changes in membership, and that the departing members could not take the property with them.

The Court also allowed the diocese's cross-appeal on costs, finding that the costs judge erred in ordering each party to bear its own costs to promote harmony, and awarded $100,000 in costs to the diocese.