Lou Ciotoli

This is a costs endorsement following the successful dismissal of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) action against media defendants (Corus and JNN defendants) under section 137.1(3) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court determined that the successful defendants were entitled to full indemnity costs, as per the statutory presumption in section 137.1(7) of the CJA, finding no factors to displace this presumption.

The plaintiff failed to file responding costs submissions.

The court awarded the Corus defendants $92,820.00 in legal fees plus HST and disbursements, and the JNN defendants $66,402.00 in legal fees plus HST and disbursements, totaling $79,443.78.

The decision emphasizes the complexity and length of anti-SLAPP motions in justifying the quantum of costs.

This case involves two anti-SLAPP motions brought by media defendants (Global News, Corus Entertainment, and Jornal North News) to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed by a former immigration lawyer.

The lawyer alleged defamation stemming from reports about his involvement in an alleged "Pilot Project" for undocumented workers, which government officials denied existed.

The court dismissed the defamation claims, finding that the media expressions related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff failed to show substantial merit to his claim, and the defendants had valid defenses of truth/justification and responsible communication.

The court also found that any harm suffered by the plaintiff did not outweigh the public interest in protecting freedom of expression.

This case involved three concurrent motions: Aviva Canada Inc. sought to strike portions of the defendants' statements of defence and counterclaims, while the defendants (1843538 Ontario Inc., Fady Rony Warda, Rony Amanuel Warda, and Michael Wetzel) sought to dismiss Aviva's claim under Rule 21 and Michael Wetzel also sought summary judgment under Rule 20.

The defendants argued that Aviva's claim should be precluded by the doctrine of ex turpi causa and/or as an abuse of process, including a civil equivalent of entrapment, stemming from Aviva's 'sting' operation involving intentionally damaged vehicles and fictitious insurance claims.

The court dismissed the defendants' motions to strike/dismiss Aviva's claim, finding it was not 'plain and obvious' that ex turpi causa or abuse of process applied to prevent Aviva's action for compensatory damages.

Wetzel's motion for summary judgment was also dismissed due to genuine issues for trial regarding liability and damages.

Aviva's motion to strike was granted in part, specifically striking an itemized list of repairs as evidence from Wetzel's pleading and striking allegations of civil entrapment from the Warda defendants' pleading, but otherwise dismissed.