Marie-Andrée Vermette

The plaintiffs, a group of nurses and their organization who organized protests against COVID-19 mandates outside hospitals, sued the defendants for defamation over statements and articles criticizing their actions.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that while the plaintiffs' claim had substantial merit, they failed to show that the harm they suffered outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expressions on matters of public health.

The action was dismissed.

The defendant JD Design & Build Inc. brought a motion opposing the confirmation of an associate judge's report, which awarded the plaintiff a construction lien and contract damages, and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim.

The defendant alleged the associate judge erred in finding that travel time was included in the contract, that certain work was outside the initial scope, and that the costs award was proportionate.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the associate judge's factual findings and no error in principle in the discretionary costs award.

The appellant tenant sought leave to appeal and to set aside an arbitration award that determined the fair market base rent for a commercial lease renewal.

The court dismissed the application, finding no basis to set aside the award under section 46 of the Arbitration Act, as the arbitrator acted within his jurisdiction and the process was fair.

Furthermore, the court denied leave to appeal under section 45(1) because the appellant's grounds raised questions of mixed fact and law, primarily concerning contractual interpretation and factual findings, rather than extricable questions of law.

The defendants were successful on their motions for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's action.

They sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the plaintiff made unsubstantiated allegations of intentional wrongdoing.

The court found the plaintiff's conduct did not rise to the egregious level required for substantial indemnity costs and awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the costs should be reduced because there were two defendants, noting the plaintiff chose to sue both.

The court awarded $32,000 to one defendant and $30,000 to the other.

The applicant brought an unsuccessful motion to transfer a defamation action commenced by the respondent in the Small Claims Court to the Superior Court of Justice, and to schedule a motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The court awarded costs to the successful respondent on a partial indemnity basis, finding that the applicant's conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity costs, but that the applicant should bear the costs of pursuing an unnecessary and unsuccessful motion.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment in a defamation action where the plaintiff was awarded general and punitive damages, the parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought $50,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the defendants' conduct was reprehensible.

The court found the defendants' conduct in the litigation did not rise to the egregious level required for elevated costs and noted the plaintiff's claimed time was excessive.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity basis in the all-inclusive amount of $23,000.

The applicant condominium owner sought an oppression remedy against the respondent condominium corporation for unreasonably restricting his ability to renovate his unit.

The corporation had imposed arbitrary timelines and limited service elevator access to two 20-minute windows, ignoring the applicant's explanations that more time was needed.

The court found the corporation's conduct unfairly disregarded the applicant's interests, ordered a reasonable construction schedule, and awarded special damages for the applicant's temporary accommodation and storage costs.

General damages were denied.

The moving defendants sought to strike the plaintiff's Superior Court action as an abuse of process.

The defendants had previously commenced 67 separate Small Claims Court actions against the plaintiff regarding HVAC rental contracts.

The plaintiff subsequently commenced this Superior Court action against the defendants, seeking damages for breach of contract and defamation, and seeking to traverse or stay the Small Claims Court actions.

The court found that the Superior Court action was duplicative of the plaintiff's defences in the Small Claims Court actions and sought to circumvent the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

The court concluded it would be an abuse of process to permit the Superior Court action to proceed while the Small Claims Court actions were pending, and ordered the action stayed.

The defendant lawyer brought a motion to set aside a judgment obtained by the plaintiff litigation lender.

The judgment had been granted based on Minutes of Settlement executed by the parties after the defendants defaulted on a settlement agreement.

The defendant argued the judgment was incorrect, failed to acknowledge past payments, and was obtained using forged affidavits of service.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the judgment was a consent judgment, not a default judgment, and the defendant failed to establish any valid grounds such as fraud or mistake to set aside the underlying agreement.

The court also noted the defendant's significant delay in bringing the motion.

The plaintiff, a 58-year-old medical assistant with 35 years of service, sued her former employer for wrongful dismissal after being placed on an indefinite layoff following the death of the doctor she primarily worked for.

The employer argued she was only temporarily laid off and failed to mitigate by refusing single shifts.

The court found the unilateral layoff constituted constructive dismissal, as the employer had no contractual right to lay her off.

The court awarded a 22-month notice period and found no failure to mitigate, as the single shifts offered were substantially different from her prior regular schedule.

Following a successful motion by the defendant to compel the self-represented plaintiff to attend an examination for discovery in person, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs due to the plaintiff's vexatious conduct, including filing voluminous irrelevant materials and making unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and criminal conduct against counsel.

The court agreed that the plaintiff's conduct was reprehensible and unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings.

The defendant was awarded substantial indemnity costs in the amount of $9,290.97.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, the successful plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court declined to award elevated costs, noting the plaintiff's conduct contributed to the motion's circumstances, including an unsuccessful adjournment request.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable within 30 days.

The plaintiff corporation sued its former in-house counsel for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and conspiracy to injure, alleging they improperly withdrew as counsel of record in an ongoing litigation and disparaged the plaintiff's principal in internal emails.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motions and dismissed the action, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court held that the defendants did not breach any duties, as one defendant was medically required to withdraw following a stroke, and the other properly resigned due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to prove any damages or conspiracy.

The applicants, members of an incorporated church and registered charity, sought an order compelling the church's board of directors to hold an annual general meeting (AGM) and elections, which had not occurred since 2016.

The respondents argued the court lacked jurisdiction, claiming the church was a voluntary religious association and the dispute was ecclesiastical.

The Superior Court of Justice rejected this argument, finding the church was a corporation governed by the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, 2010, and the applicants had established legal rights under the statute.

The court ordered the holding of an AGM under the supervision of a neutral chair for the purpose of electing a new board of directors.

The plaintiff, a former executive at a property development company, claimed a 5% interest in the profit from the sale of a real estate development project.

The defendant argued the oral agreement was too uncertain to be enforceable and that any such interest was extinguished by a full and final release signed upon the plaintiff's termination.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the agreement was sufficiently certain and that the release, when read with the incorporated settlement correspondence, preserved the plaintiff's 5% interest.

The court awarded the plaintiff $1,372,992 in damages based on his expert's calculation of the profit from the sale of the lands.

Following a successful application to terminate a tenancy and evict the respondents for unpaid rent, the applicants sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The respondents failed to deliver costs submissions.

The court found that the respondents' conduct did not rise to the level of reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous behaviour required for an elevated costs award.

Costs were awarded to the applicants on a partial indemnity basis in the all-inclusive amount of $9,000.

The plaintiffs appealed an Associate Judge's order dismissing their motion to strike the defendants' statement of defence for alleged failure to answer undertakings as required by consent orders.

The plaintiffs also sought leave to appeal the $20,000 costs award.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Associate Judge made no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors of law in concluding that the defendants had made reasonable efforts to comply with the undertakings.

Leave to appeal the costs order was also denied as there was no error in principle.

The applicant, a defendant in a Small Claims Court defamation action regarding a Google review, brought a motion to transfer the action to the Superior Court of Justice.

The transfer was sought solely to enable the applicant to bring an anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, which the Court of Appeal previously ruled is unavailable in Small Claims Court.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the unavailability of a section 137.1 motion does not mean the action cannot be justly and fairly resolved in Small Claims Court, and that the traditional factors for transfer were not met.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a defamation action against the defendants for publishing articles on a website and sending WhatsApp messages containing false allegations of financial impropriety and misappropriation of funds.

The court found the case appropriate for summary judgment and held that the articles were defamatory.

The defendants failed to establish any defences, including justification, responsible communication, qualified privilege, or fair comment, due to a complete lack of evidence supporting the allegations and a reckless failure to verify them.

The court awarded the plaintiff $75,000 in general damages and $25,000 in punitive damages, but declined to grant a permanent injunction.

The applicant sought remedies under the oppression provisions of the Business Corporations Act, alleging the respondent operated their jointly owned bubble tea franchise corporations in an oppressive manner.

The applicant claimed she was excluded from management, denied financial information, and that the respondent misappropriated business opportunities.

The respondent denied the allegations and alternatively sought an order for the sale of the applicant's shares without a finding of oppression.

The court found numerous material facts in dispute, credibility issues, and a need for expert evidence regarding management fees and residency status.

Consequently, the court ordered the issues raised in the application to proceed to trial and declined to order a sale of shares on the current record.