Ludmilla Jarda

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding $35,000 in defamation damages to each respondent after the appellant referred to them as 'House Negroes' in a blog post.

The appellant argued the trial judge should have recused himself for bias, erred in rejecting defences of fair comment and truth, and awarded excessive damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, upholding the trial judge's findings that the term was derogatory and not protected by fair comment, and concluding the damages were within a reasonable range given the respondents' public standing and the seriousness of the defamation.

The plaintiffs sought costs after successfully opposing the defendants' motion for leave to register certificates of pending litigation.

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the principle of indemnity and the unsuccessful party's reasonable expectations.

Despite the plaintiffs' higher actual costs, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis, balancing the parties' expectations and the motion's importance to the plaintiffs, though it was not complex.

Costs were fixed at $7,500.00, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs within 30 days.

The applicants, Ahmed Abou-Gabal and Velika Realty Inc., brought a motion seeking certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) against properties owned by Jovalyn and Derian Tuitt.

The applicants' counterclaim referenced alleged mortgages and defaults but did not explicitly claim an interest in land or seek remedies like foreclosure or sale.

The court found that the counterclaim, as pleaded, did not establish an interest in land in question, which is a prerequisite for issuing a CPL.

Furthermore, the court noted that even if an interest in land had been established, the properties were not unique, and damages would likely be an adequate remedy, which would also weigh against granting a CPL.

The motion for CPLs was dismissed.

The plaintiffs sued the school board, a vice-principal, and a former student for events that occurred in September 2009, alleging false imprisonment, malicious intent, and negligence after the plaintiff student was arrested for uttering threats.

The court found the defendants' evidence credible, rejected the plaintiffs' allegations of a grudge or malicious intent by the vice-principal, and concluded the confinement of the student during the investigation was justified.

The action was dismissed.