Lillianne Cadieux-Shaw

The plaintiff commenced a wrongful dismissal action against her former employer in 2019.

In 2022, she commenced a separate tort action against the employer and a co-worker, alleging intentional infliction of mental distress, intrusion upon seclusion, and the novel torts of harassment and stalking, based on the same factual footprint.

The defendants moved to strike the novel torts and to stay or dismiss the 2022 action as an abuse of process or duplicative proceeding.

The court declined to strike the novel torts, finding it was not plain and obvious they would fail.

The court also declined to stay the 2022 action, finding no abuse of process, but struck the 2022 statement of claim for pleading irregularities with leave to amend, and ordered the two actions consolidated.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the court determined the appropriate scale and quantum of costs.

The court declined to award full indemnity costs, finding that the plaintiff was not a powerful entity using litigation to intimidate a vulnerable opponent and that the claim had substantial merit.

Applying a modest discount for the defendants' delay in bringing the motion, the court awarded the defendants $75,000 in costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The defendants, a national broadcaster and its employees, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiff, a student travel company, alleged that the defendants' reporting on the death of a student during a trip was defamatory.

The court found that the expression related to a matter of public interest and that the plaintiff failed to show there was no valid defence, specifically the defence of fair comment.

The court also found the balance of harms favoured protecting the expression, and dismissed the action.

The plaintiff, a former member of a white supremacist group, sued the defendants, also former members or individuals involved in anti-hate work, alleging they appropriated her life story and committed various torts including injurious falsehood, civil conspiracy, and negligence.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims, and one defendant counterclaimed for defamation, invasion of privacy, and appropriation of personality.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims as frivolous and vexatious, finding no evidence to support any of the alleged torts.

The court granted the defendant's counterclaim, awarding $100,000 in general damages, $50,000 in aggravated damages, and $50,000 in punitive damages, along with a permanent injunction.