Lorne Michael Honickman

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 appellant, Deltro Electric Ltd., appealed a decision of the Electrical Safety Authority Review Panel confirming the application of a 'Wattage Based' inspection fee to its solar farm installations.

The appellant argued that the fee was invalidly enacted due to procedural defects, that certain projects were exempt from the Electrical Safety Code, and that the use of MC4 connectors did not constitute an electrical installation requiring inspection.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal, finding that the ESA had cured any initial procedural defects by the time the fees were applied, that the projects required ESA connection authorizations under the Distribution System Code, and that connecting PV panels with MC4 connectors constituted work on an electrical installation subject to inspection.

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 defendant, the Attorney General of Ontario, brought a Rule 21 motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action on the ground that it was barred by a limitation period.

The plaintiffs, police officers, alleged negligence and misfeasance in public office by Crown counsel.

The court, applying the principles from Beardsley v. Ontario Provincial Police, found that the limitation period issue involved legal and factual complexities, including the discoverability of a potentially novel claim, and therefore should not be determined at a preliminary stage before pleadings were closed.

The preliminary question was decided in favour of the plaintiffs, and the motion to dismiss on this ground was denied.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued an Order of Monetary Penalty of $2,000 against the appellant establishment for allegedly exceeding its licensed capacity by 10 patrons.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the inspector's evidence and noted that only one count was performed, which was not a precise 'count-out'.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the establishment was over capacity.

The monetary penalty was set aside.

This judgment addresses the determination of "costs thrown away" following the plaintiffs' successful request for a trial adjournment.

The court defined "costs thrown away" as wasted trial preparation expenses that would need to be repeated.

It applied an "intuitive" discount to the defendants' claimed costs, distinguishing between truly wasted efforts and preparation that would retain value for a future trial.

The court also deferred the assessment of costs related to the adjournment motion itself until after the trial, when the full context of disclosure issues would be clearer.

The defendants were awarded $6,225.33 in costs thrown away.

HSBC Bank Canada moved to dismiss Panther Film Services Inc.'s action for delay, which had been outstanding for 12 years.

Panther brought a cross-motion to restore the action to the trial list.

The court applied the three-part test for dismissal for delay: inordinate, inexcusable, and substantial risk to a fair trial.

While the delay was inordinate and inexcusable (Panther's arguments regarding shared delay and third-party settlement negotiations were rejected), the court found that Panther successfully rebutted the presumption of prejudice by demonstrating that documentary evidence was preserved and key witnesses were available, making it primarily a documents case.

The motion to dismiss was dismissed, and the cross-motion to restore was granted, with an order for further security for costs against Panther.

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.

The appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty of $1,500 issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for allegedly exceeding the licensed indoor capacity of its establishment, contrary to section 43 of O. Reg. 719/90.

AGCO inspectors conducted walk-through counts that showed the indoor capacity of 93 was exceeded.

The appellant argued the count methodology was unreliable and that it had its own capacity controls in place.

The Tribunal found the inspectors' evidence credible and reliable, concluding that the Registrar proved on a balance of probabilities that the capacity was exceeded.

The monetary penalty was confirmed.

The plaintiff commenced a civil action alleging trespass, conversion, negligent investigation, and Charter breaches after OSPCA agents removed his livestock and laid charges under the OSPCA Act.

The defendants brought a refusals motion seeking to compel answers to discovery questions regarding the plaintiff’s knowledge and beliefs about the legality of OSPCA powers and investigative practices.

The court held that questions seeking the plaintiff’s personal legal opinions on contested legal issues were irrelevant where counsel had already articulated the legal positions.

The defendants’ motion was dismissed.

On the plaintiff’s cross‑motion, the court granted leave to amend pleadings and ordered production of certain OSPCA training materials, policies, tariff information, and other information relevant to alleged warrantless entries and potential Charter remedies, while dismissing requests deemed irrelevant.

The appellant challenged the validity of a municipal election in Ward 9 of the City of Toronto, arguing that 275 Voters' List Change Request Forms (VLCRFs) were invalid because they lacked an election official's signature.

The application judge declared the election invalid, but the Divisional Court overturned this decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, applying the substantive approach from the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Opitz.

The Court held that the omission of the election official's signature was a procedural irregularity that did not compromise the voters' underlying entitlement to vote, and therefore did not affect the result of the election.

The plaintiffs brought a defamation action against the defendant arising from a public response letter published after a newspaper article criticizing the defendant’s investigation into farm animal conditions.

The defendant moved for summary judgment arguing the publication was protected by qualified privilege, while the plaintiffs cross-moved to strike the defence.

The court held that the evidentiary record was insufficient to determine whether the defence of qualified privilege applied or had been defeated by malice.

Numerous factual disputes concerning the underlying investigation, the accuracy of the statements made, and the defendant’s dominant motive required credibility assessments that could only properly occur at trial.

Both motions were therefore dismissed and the issue of qualified privilege left to be determined on a full evidentiary record.

In an appeal from Ontario, the appellants sought a stay of a defamation action on the basis of lack of jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.

The Court held that Ontario had a real and substantial connection because the alleged tort was published in Ontario and the plaintiff pleaded publication and reputational harm in that forum.

The Court also held that the appellants failed to show Quebec was clearly more appropriate, giving deference to the motion judge’s discretionary forum analysis.

The Court discussed concerns about forum shopping and noted, without deciding, that choice-of-law rules in multijurisdictional defamation may warrant future refinement.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Following a successful appeal by the municipality and elected candidates that upheld the validity of a municipal election, the court determined the costs of the proceedings.

The court held that the unsuccessful challenging candidates were not entitled to have their costs paid by the municipality, despite claiming public interest litigant status.

However, the court ordered the municipality to pay the partial indemnity costs of the successful elected candidates, recognizing they were blameless parties drawn into expensive litigation due to mistakes made by municipal election officials.

The court also ordered one of the challenging candidates to pay the costs of a motion he unreasonably opposed.

The appellants appealed a decision declaring the 2010 municipal elections for Ward 9 City Councillor and Ward 4 TDSB Trustee invalid due to election officials failing to sign Voters List Change Request Forms.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that while the failure to sign the forms was an irregularity, it did not affect the result of the elections because the vast majority of the voters had signed declarations confirming their eligibility to vote.

The Court held that the elections were conducted in accordance with the principles of the Municipal Elections Act and set aside the order for by-elections.