Marcus Aurelius Klee

The plaintiff, a prominent lawyer and political activist, brought a defamation action against the defendant, an internet broadcaster, over videos alleging the plaintiff was a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic extremism.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment.

The court found the case appropriate for summary judgment, holding that the defendant's statements were defamatory and that the defences of fair comment and responsible communication failed because the statements were presented as facts, lacked a factual foundation, and were made with malice and reckless disregard for the truth.

The court awarded the plaintiff $500,000 in general and aggravated damages and granted a permanent injunction requiring the removal of the videos and prohibiting the defendant from making further statements about the plaintiff.

The plaintiff commenced defamation actions against the defendants regarding online broadcasts and internet postings.

A summary judgment motion was scheduled for September 21, 2021.

On September 10, 2021, the defendant retained new counsel, who requested a brief adjournment to prepare a new factum and provide proper representation.

The court denied the adjournment request, finding that the defendant provided no explanation for the late retention of counsel, the plaintiff would be prejudiced by further delay as the alleged defamatory postings remained online, and the administration of justice would not be served by a last-minute adjournment.

The Canadian respondents brought a motion to set aside an ex parte Mareva injunction that froze their assets worldwide.

They argued the injunction should be set aside due to material non-disclosure by the applicants and insufficient evidence of their involvement in the alleged $71.7 million fraud or risk of dissipation.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside, finding no material non-disclosure and sufficient evidence of knowing receipt of misappropriated funds and risk of dissipation.

However, the court varied the order to release funds for the respondents' living and legal expenses.

The court also granted a sealing order over the transcripts of the respondents' compelled examinations to protect their rights against self-incrimination in light of a criminal investigation in Iran.

The respondents' request for security for the applicants' undertaking as to damages was denied.

The Court considered whether a patent specification for erectile-dysfunction treatment satisfied disclosure obligations under s. 27(3) of the Patent Act where cascading claims ended with two individual compounds but did not identify the tested effective compound.

The Court held sufficiency must be assessed on the specification as a whole and not by isolating a single surviving claim under s. 58.

Because a skilled person would need further testing to determine which claimed compound worked, the specification did not enable successful use of the invention from the disclosure alone.

The appeal was allowed, the prohibition order was set aside, and the patent was held invalid for insufficient disclosure.

In a copyright appeal, the Court considered whether pre-existing sound recordings embedded in film and television soundtracks remain subject to equitable remuneration under s. 19 of the Copyright Act when the soundtrack accompanies a cinematographic work.

Applying modern statutory interpretation, the Court held that the soundtrack exclusion in the definition of sound recording captures pre-existing recordings in that context.

The Court found this reading consistent with the legislative scheme, parliamentary intent, and international obligations under the Rome Convention.

As a result, the proposed tariffs could not be certified for performances or communications of recordings when accompanying cinematographic works.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a Complaints Committee decision requiring him to attend for a Caution regarding an alleged improper breast examination.

The Divisional Court quashed the Board's decision, finding that the entire process fell below the required standard of procedural fairness.

The Committee and Board improperly made credibility findings based on uncorroborated hearsay, relied on an undisclosed expert opinion, and engaged in an unconscionable delay of 1,350 days.