Thomas J. McRae

The applicant bank sought an order for possession and power of sale of a mortgaged condominium unit.

The respondent Singh claimed to be the beneficial owner of the property pursuant to a trust declaration with the registered owner, Andrade, and raised various defences including claims of fraud, knowing assistance to breach of trust, equitable mortgage, and equitable subordination.

The court found that Singh had failed to comply with court orders requiring him to pay the mortgage and granted the bank's application for possession and a writ of possession, stayed for 30 days to allow Singh to vacate.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from an appeal where VAC Developments Limited's counterclaim against Mr. Williams was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed VAC's appeal from that judgment.

Mr. Williams sought full indemnity costs for the appeal and a fresh evidence motion, but the court awarded partial indemnity costs for the appeal, finding no grounds for a heightened award.

For the fresh evidence motion, which was occasioned by an unsupported allegation in Mr. Williams' factum, the court awarded reduced costs to Mr. Williams and also to Mr. Lakhani, a third party who intervened, acknowledging their partial responsibility for the motion's necessity.

This is an appeal from an anti-SLAPP motion.

The appellant, VAC Developments Limited, sought to overturn the dismissal of its $1.5 million defamation counterclaim against the respondent, Agin Williams.

Williams had publicly alleged that VAC failed to address racist threats and dismissed him in reprisal for involving the police.

The motion judge dismissed VAC's counterclaim under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, finding VAC had not shown substantial merit or sufficiently serious harm to outweigh the public interest in protecting Williams' expression.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, agreeing that VAC failed to demonstrate sufficiently serious harm, which is a critical component of the public interest balancing test in anti-SLAPP motions.

This is a costs decision following a successful anti-SLAPP motion brought by Agin Williams against Vac Developments Limited, which resulted in the dismissal of the company's counterclaim.

Williams sought full indemnity costs of $94,883.60 and $20,000 in damages.

Vac Developments conceded costs were payable but argued the amount was inflated, proposing $20,000.

The court awarded Williams $45,200 in costs (fees and disbursements of $40,000 plus HST), finding the amount sought excessive but justifying a full indemnity award due to the punitive nature of the counterclaim and power imbalance.

No damages were awarded as bad faith or improper purpose was not found, nor evidence of damages presented during the motion.

The applicant, a former employee, brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the respondent employer's $1.5 million counterclaim for defamation, injurious falsehood, and unlawful interference with economic interests.

The counterclaim arose from the applicant's statements to CTV News regarding alleged workplace racism and his subsequent layoff.

The court found that while the respondent met the threshold for substantial merit regarding the defamation claim and the applicant's fair comment defence might not succeed, the public interest in protecting the applicant's expression on anti-Black racism in the workplace overwhelmingly outweighed the public interest in allowing the disproportionate and unsubstantiated counterclaim to continue.

The counterclaim was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order enforcing a settlement agreement between the parties.

The motion judge found that the parties had agreed to material settlement terms, including a payment of $850,000 from the respondent to the appellant, the filing of a proposal to creditors under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, dismissal of actions without costs, mutual releases, and confidentiality.

The appellant challenged the inclusion of the proposal requirement and the payment into court mechanism.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no extricable errors of law and dismissing the appeal with costs awarded to the respondent.

Self-represented long-term disability beneficiaries sought leave to appeal a sanction order from the Superior Court of Justice in the Nortel Networks CCAA proceedings.

The applicants challenged their binding status under the 2009 Representation Order for Disabled Employees and the 2010 Employee Settlement Agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the stringent test for leave in CCAA proceedings was not met.

The proposed appeal lacked merit, the applicants were bound by the settlement agreement, and further delays in the protracted litigation were to be avoided.

The court also rejected a late-filed notice of constitutional question challenging sections 6(1) and 11 of the CCAA.