Lorne Honickman

The applicants, six individuals with ongoing litigation against the respondent, brought an application under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act to declare the respondent a vexatious litigant and stay all her proceedings.

The respondent had initiated over 50 proceedings, many involving allegations of sexual assault and defamation against former romantic partners.

Despite finding that the respondent exhibited many badges of vexatious conduct, the court dismissed the application, emphasizing the importance of allowing civil claims of sexual assault to be adjudicated on their merits rather than being summarily stayed.

Following a successful motion to strike the plaintiff's statements of claim, the defendants sought costs of $15,702.14 on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff opposed the costs award, arguing that his impecuniosity and partial success in retaining a battery claim against one defendant justified a reduction or no costs.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding that the defendants' success was not diminished by the remaining battery claim and that impecuniosity did not justify a reduction in these circumstances.

The court awarded the defendants costs as requested.

The plaintiff, a union member, commenced an action against three union officials for defamation, battery, and negligence arising from a union election dispute.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim.

The plaintiff delivered a fresh as amended statement of claim and later brought a cross-motion for leave to deliver a second fresh as amended statement of claim to add the union as a party and assert a claim for civil conspiracy.

The court struck all claims without leave to amend, except for the battery claim against one defendant, finding that the proposed civil conspiracy claim and the claims against the union were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for investment fraud on the basis that it was statute-barred.

The plaintiffs had invested funds between 2006 and 2008 but stopped receiving payments shortly after.

Despite making inquiries and receiving no payments or return of principal by May 2013, the plaintiffs did not commence their action until September 2016.

The court found that a reasonable person in the plaintiffs' circumstances ought to have known of the claim by May 2013 at the latest.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The applicant brought motions to convert a condominium application and counter-application into an action, consolidate them with an ongoing defamation action, permit the use of discovery evidence across proceedings, and strike a defamation pleading in the counter-application.

The court found the matters were deeply interwoven, involving the same factual matrix regarding the applicant's conduct and social media posts about the condominium board.

To avoid inconsistent findings and multiplicity of proceedings, the court ordered the conversion and consolidation.

The court also granted leave to use discovery evidence and struck the defamation pleading with leave to amend for failing to provide adequate particulars.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action on the basis that the limitation period had expired.

The plaintiff argued that the limitation period should be deferred under s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act, 2002, because it was not legally appropriate to commence a civil claim while criminal charges arising from the defendant's statements to the police were ongoing.

The court applied the Court of Appeal's reasoning in Sosnowski v. MacEwan Petroleum, finding that the civil claim and criminal charges were not 'two sides of the same coin' and that subjective, evaluative concerns do not delay discoverability.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The appellants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $10,891.88 following a successful appeal from a Master's decision.

The court found no basis for awarding costs on an elevated scale, noting that while the earlier motion may have been due to the respondent's conduct, he could not be blamed for the appeal itself.

Applying the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality, the court awarded the appellants costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $5,583.33.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision denying them leave to examine non-parties to trace funds and enforce a 1997 judgment against the respondents.

The Master had also ruled that the respondent did not have to provide further answers to previously ordered questions, citing the passage of time and the expiry of limitation periods.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the Master erred in law by invoking the doctrine of laches and the Limitations Act, 2002, as there is no limitation period for enforcing a judgment.

The court ordered the respondent to provide further answers and permitted the examination of the non-parties.

The plaintiffs brought a motion in 2019 to enforce a judgment obtained in 1997, seeking a further accounting from the judgment debtor and leave to examine third parties in aid of execution.

The court found that the plaintiffs' extreme delay constituted laches and that any potential claims against the third parties were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court dismissed the request to examine third parties but ordered the self-represented judgment debtor to re-attend an examination to answer specific questions on a best efforts basis.

The plaintiffs, a Muslim-Canadian businessman and his restaurant chain, sued the defendants for defamation after the defendants posted videos containing hateful comments about Muslims and the restaurant.

One of the defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, and alternatively under Rule 21.01(3)(d) as an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant's expression was not related to a matter of public interest, but rather constituted hallmarks of hate directed at the plaintiffs.

The court also found the pleadings set out a valid prima facie case of defamation.

The plaintiff, having been entirely successful on a motion, sought partial indemnity costs of $14,338.80.

The defendants argued costs should be in the cause or parties should bear their own costs.

The court rejected the defendants' position, finding the plaintiff was the clear winner.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality under Rule 57.01, the court reduced the claimed amount and awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $8,400.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable forthwith.

Three Toronto police officers sued the Attorney General of Ontario for negligence and misfeasance in public office, alleging that Crown Attorneys failed to properly investigate and defend against allegations of police misconduct made by an accused during a criminal trial, causing reputational harm to the officers.

The Attorney General moved to strike the claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The court struck the negligence claim, finding that while a prima facie duty of care might exist, it was negated by policy concerns regarding the diversion of Crown Attorneys from their primary duties and the potential chilling effect on prosecutorial discretion.

However, the court allowed the misfeasance in public office claim to proceed, finding that the plaintiffs had properly pleaded the necessary elements of deliberate and unlawful conduct.

The defendants in two separate defamation actions brought a motion to consolidate the actions and to compel the plaintiffs to serve a further and better affidavit of documents.

The actions arose from a report published by the defendants alleging the plaintiffs had ties to terrorist organizations.

The court declined to consolidate the actions into one, noting they were already set for trial, but ordered that they be heard together or consecutively.

The court also ordered the plaintiffs to produce certain requested documents relevant to the defence of justification, while denying the request for other documents deemed irrelevant or part of a fishing expedition.

The plaintiff, a former officer and director of the defendant mining company, sued for wrongful dismissal seeking over $2.3 million under a 2008 Management Consulting Agreement.

The defendant argued the agreement was unenforceable due to the plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty in its negotiation and that, in any event, the plaintiff was terminated for just cause.

The court found the 2008 agreement was the product of a flawed process and contained unfair terms, constituting a breach of fiduciary duty.

Furthermore, the court held the plaintiff's subsequent conduct, including installing hidden cameras, issuing unauthorized press releases, and trading shares during blackout periods, provided just cause for termination.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend its statement of claim to add three new defendants and a new cause of action for conspiracy to injure, nearly four years after the incident.

The defendants opposed, arguing the claims were statute-barred.

The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff met the low evidentiary burden to show reasonable diligence in discovering the alleged conspiracy, which is secretive by nature.

The court also found the proposed pleading contained all necessary elements for a conspiracy claim.

The defendants were granted leave to plead a limitations defence.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's defamation action after a seven-day trial, the defendants sought costs of approximately $88,000, arguing for substantial indemnity costs from the date of their Rule 49 offer to settle.

The plaintiff argued no costs should be awarded.

The court found the Rule 49 offer defective as it did not specify costs, rejecting the claim for substantial indemnity.

Applying principles of proportionality, the court awarded the defendants costs fixed at $40,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiff brought a defamation action against a hotel and its night manager arising from statements recorded in an internal “Midnight Log” describing the plaintiff as intoxicated and belligerent during a dispute at the hotel’s front desk.

The court held that the statements were capable of referring to the plaintiff and were defamatory.

However, the court found the substance of the account was substantially true except for the characterization that the plaintiff was intoxicated.

The court further held that the preparation and internal circulation of the log and its use in an employee discipline meeting were made on occasions of qualified privilege, and there was no proof of malice.

As a result, the defamation claim failed, although the court indicated that damages would have been assessed at $25,000 if liability had been established.