Lorne Michael Honickman

The plaintiff, Avi Berger, moved to stay a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) application pending the outcome of his Superior Court action, in which he claims a beneficial ownership interest in the property at issue.

The defendant Sammie Millis, the current owner, opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the LTB has sole jurisdiction over tenancy and eviction matters, and that the Superior Court action regarding beneficial ownership can proceed independently.

The court found no special circumstances to warrant a stay and held that granting one would be unjust to the landlord.

The applicant, a real estate agent, sought judicial review of a decision by the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) Appeals Committee, which upheld findings that she breached the Code of Ethics by misleading her clients about the existence of competing offers.

The applicant argued the proceedings were procedurally unfair and the decisions were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no procedural unfairness despite discrepancies between the allegation statement and the evidence presented.

The court also held that the RECO committees reasonably assessed credibility and weighed the evidence, including the lack of written records of other offers, in concluding the applicant had committed professional misconduct.

This costs endorsement addresses the entitlement and quantum of costs following the successful anti-SLAPP motion by the Canadian Anti-Hate Network and Bernie Farber.

The court awards full indemnity costs of $49,319.13 to the moving parties, finding no basis to depart from the statutory presumption under s. 137.1(7) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The decision reviews the relevant factors for costs, including proportionality, complexity, and settlement offers, and finds the amount sought to be fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The appellants, Charles McVety and Canada Christian College, appealed a motion judge's decision to dismiss their anti-SLAPP motion against a defamation action brought by Kory Teneycke and Rubicon Strategy Inc. The defamation claim alleged that McVety publicly stated Teneycke acted in a conflict of interest regarding Ontario's vaccine passport policy and profited from it, and that Teneycke was prejudiced against Christians.

The motion judge found substantial merit to the defamation action and that the appellants had no viable defences, partly due to potential malice, and that the public interest favored allowing the action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's analysis of the claim's merits and defences, and while agreeing the balancing analysis was flawed, a fresh analysis led to the same conclusion that the public interest in allowing the action outweighed the public interest in protecting the appellants' expression, given the low quality and malicious motivation of the speech.

The request for leave to appeal costs was also dismissed.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation claim brought by the plaintiffs, a tattoo artist and her company.

The defamation arose from negative online reviews and social media posts by the defendants regarding alleged misadventures and disputes over tattoo services, pricing, and plagiarism.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the expressions, while attracting public attention, were fundamentally about private contractual and consumer disputes and did not relate to a matter of public interest as contemplated by the anti-SLAPP legislation.

The court also awarded costs against the defendants, noting the motions were inappropriate and tactical.

This case concerns an anti-SLAPP motion brought by the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) and Bernie Farber against multiple plaintiffs who initiated a $44 million action following the Ottawa protests and the invocation of the Emergencies Act.

The plaintiffs alleged defamation and civil conspiracy, claiming CAHN provided false information to government and police, influencing the emergency measures and freezing of assets.

The court dismissed the action against CAHN, finding the plaintiffs failed to particularize their claims, lacked substantial merit, and could not overcome valid defences such as non-compliance with notice periods under the Libel and Slander Act and the Limitations Act.

The court also determined that the public interest in protecting CAHN's expression on a matter of public interest outweighed the harm alleged by the plaintiffs, and declined to award damages to CAHN.

The applicant, a victim of fraud, sought orders to freeze and trace funds amounting to 290,000 Euros ($430,000 CDN) that were fraudulently wired to a bank account held by one of the respondents.

The applicant also sought a sealing order for a previous related application containing personal information.

The court found the applicant's affidavit credible and determined that the funds were paid under a mistake of fact, making them repayable.

The court granted all relief sought by the applicant, including the freezing and tracing orders, and the sealing of the prior application.

Dr. Covant, a veterinarian, appealed a Divisional Court decision that upheld a finding of professional misconduct by the College of Veterinarians of Ontario's Discipline Committee.

The misconduct stemmed from re-selling large quantities of veterinary drugs to human pharmacies, which violated an amended regulation (s. 33(2)(d) of R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 1093) restricting such sales to "reasonably limited quantities" for "temporary shortages." Covant argued the regulation was unconstitutionally vague and/or overbroad, the misconduct finding was erroneous, and the imposed penalty was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, affirming that the regulation was not impermissibly vague or overbroad, the professional misconduct was properly established given Covant's ongoing sub-distribution enterprise, and the one-month suspension and costs award were fit and reasonable.

The applicant, a plastic surgeon, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).

The ICRC required the applicant to be cautioned for failing to attend in person to a patient with a severe hand injury while on-call, and advised him to make appropriate efforts to communicate urgency when handing over care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the HPARB's decision was reasonable and owed deference, as the record supported the conclusions that the applicant should have attended the emergency room and failed to adequately communicate the urgency of the patient's referral.

The appellant challenged a lower court order that struck two versions of his statement of claim (except for a battery claim) and denied him leave to amend it a third time to add a new party (the Union) and a civil conspiracy claim.

The motion judge had found the claims against the Union and the civil conspiracy claim to be statute-barred, and declaratory relief also barred as it was connected to damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the civil conspiracy elements were not pleaded in earlier claims and that the new claims were out of time, even when reading the self-represented appellant's pleadings generously.

This decision concerns a motion for costs brought by the defendants following the plaintiff's discontinuance of a defamation action.

The plaintiff had initially filed in Small Claims Court, then transferred the action to Superior Court, increasing the claim tenfold, before discontinuing it prior to discoveries.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the plaintiff's claim lacked bona fides and was vexatious, especially given an earlier police investigation identified the plaintiff as a suspect in online death threats against the defendants' son.

The court, exercising its discretion under Rule 23.05 and the Courts of Justice Act, found the plaintiff's conduct exceptional and awarded costs on a substantial indemnity scale, concluding the claim was not bona fide and lacked justification.

The court fixed costs at $27,000.

The applicant, a Nurse Manager, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) upholding an order by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Nurses.

The ICRC ordered the applicant to complete a remediation program after a resident signed a 'Do Not Resuscitate' (DNR) form without a proper capacity assessment, despite the applicant having found the resident lacked capacity days earlier.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the decisions reasonable as the core issue was the failure to properly assess capacity, not whether the resident actually had capacity at the time.

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.

The appellant veterinarian appealed decisions of the Discipline Committee finding he engaged in professional misconduct by dispensing and reselling veterinary drugs to pharmacies in large quantities, contrary to s. 33(2)(d) of the General Regulation under the Veterinarians Act.

The appellant challenged the validity of the regulation, arguing it was ultra vires, vague, overbroad, and improperly enacted without procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the regulation was validly enacted within the College's statutory authority and that the terms 'reasonably limited quantities' and 'temporary shortage' were not unconstitutionally vague.

The court upheld the finding of professional misconduct and the penalty of a one-month suspension, public reprimand, and costs, finding no palpable and overriding error.

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.

Three police officers sued the Attorney General of Ontario for misfeasance in public office, alleging Crown prosecutors mishandled stay applications brought by two accused persons who claimed the officers assaulted them during an arrest.

The majority held that prosecutorial immunity bars misfeasance claims by police officers against Crown prosecutors, as allowing such claims would fundamentally undermine prosecutorial independence and objectivity and imperil the accused's right to a fair trial.

The majority found that the mutually independent relationship between police and prosecutors is incompatible with a regime of legal accountability running from prosecutor to police.

In dissent, one justice would have dismissed the appeal, finding four policy reasons why prosecutorial immunity should not apply to deliberate and unlawful prosecutorial conduct causing serious harm to police officers facing findings of brutality, and that the high liability threshold for misfeasance adequately guards prosecutorial independence.

The applicant, a minor hockey coach, sought judicial review of a Children's Aid Society (CAS) decision verifying that six children were at risk of emotional harm due to his coaching conduct.

The Divisional Court granted the application and set aside the CAS decision.

The Court found that the CAS breached procedural fairness by failing to provide the applicant with adequate notice of the specific allegations and the legal standard being applied.

Furthermore, the CAS's investigation was inadequate and its decision was unreasonable, as it failed to properly apply the legislative criteria for emotional harm and lacked a logical, reasoned basis for its conclusions regarding each child.

The applicant pharmacist sought judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Review Committee (ICRC) of the Ontario College of Pharmacists to issue an oral caution and require a remediation program following dispensing errors.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable and the remedial measures were unduly harsh.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the ICRC's decision was transparent, intelligible, and justified based on the applicant's failure to exercise due diligence when dispensing a 'red flag' medication.

The court also held that the caution and educational requirements were remedial in nature, not punitive, and were appropriate in the circumstances.