Mark Paul Mac Donald

A case management conference was held to schedule an appeal from a Small Claims Court decision involving defamation.

The court noted the appeal had been outstanding for over a year and the respondent was 85 years old, necessitating no further delay.

The court scheduled a one-day virtual hearing via Zoom and provided detailed procedural directions for the electronic filing of appeal materials, factums, and compendiums.

The plaintiffs, comprising the estate of Tai-Kiu Mak and three of her sons, brought a motion for summary judgment against the fourth son, Kenny Chi-Keung Mak.

The plaintiffs sought an accounting for various assets, including a security account, term deposits, a joint account, and gold, which Kenny claimed were gifts from his mother.

Kenny asserted his mother intended to benefit him due to his lesser financial standing compared to his brothers.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that the voluminous evidence (over 30 affidavits and hundreds of documents) and serious credibility issues between the parties made it impossible to reach a fair and just determination on the merits without a full trial.

The judge emphasized that such complex cases, particularly those involving family disputes and intentions of a deceased person, are unsuitable for summary judgment.

The defendants were successful in defending a defamation action brought by the plaintiffs regarding a scientific controversy.

The defendants sought costs of over $2.2 million, while the plaintiffs proposed approximately $236,000.

The court noted the defendants presented a comprehensive and formidable defence, whereas the plaintiffs' case was not robust and relied on a failed strategy.

Applying the principles for fixing costs, the court balanced the need to indemnify the successful, blameless defendants against the risk of deterring future litigants.

The court fixed the defendants' costs at $1,478,766.64, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiffs, a genetic testing company and its director, sued the defendants for defamation over a magazine article criticizing their non-invasive prenatal paternity test.

The article alleged the test was dangerous, unreliable, and prone to error.

The court found the article was defamatory but dismissed the action, holding that the defendants successfully established the defences of justification, qualified privilege, fair comment, and responsible communication.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to properly validate their test according to accepted scientific methodology, rendering the test unreliable and the article's claims substantially true.

In a defamation action concerning an article criticizing the plaintiffs' prenatal paternity test, the defendants brought a motion to amend their Statement of Defence after the close of evidence at trial.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that the amendment introduced new allegations regarding the validity of the underlying science, which would cause non-compensable prejudice.

The court reviewed the existing pleadings and expert reports, concluding that the validity of the science was already a live issue and the amendment merely clarified existing allegations.

The court granted the motion to amend, finding no prejudice to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff successfully opposed the defendants' motion for summary judgment and sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the defendants acted unreasonably in bringing the motion, as there was no factual or legal basis for their limitation period defence regarding the nuisance and snow loading claims.

Additionally, the plaintiff had served an offer to settle the motion.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixing the quantum at $80,673.62 after applying a 20% reduction to the fees claimed for being moderately excessive.

The respondent school board filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of a non-party student's (Student X) Ontario Student Record (OSR), notice to Student X, anonymization of all decisions, and sealing of the entire Tribunal file.

The Tribunal ordered the production of Student X's OSR, noting it was arguably relevant to the respondent's defence regarding competing accommodation needs, and ordered that any OSR documents filed into evidence be sealed.

The Tribunal declined to order further notice to Student X, as notice had already been provided.

The requests for blanket anonymization and sealing of the entire file were dismissed, as the Tribunal's standard practice of anonymizing minors adequately protects privacy interests.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action on the basis that the claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff claimed damages for anticipated snow loading caused by the construction of an adjacent City Hall addition, as well as damages in nuisance for noise, dust, vibration, and hoarding during construction.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial.

The court held that a claim for snow loading damage does not arise until actual damage occurs, and the nuisance claim may constitute a continuing cause of action.

The personal respondent requested to be removed as a party to the human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Sigrist and Persaud, noting that the only allegations where the personal respondent's conduct was a central issue had already been dismissed as untimely.

Finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the personal respondent and no prejudice to the applicants, the Tribunal granted the request and removed the personal respondent.

The applicant sought damages for breach of contract, tracing orders, constructive trust, equitable lien, and piercing the corporate veil against the corporate and individual respondents.

The court dismissed the application, finding that service was not properly effected under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the application was not a suitable vehicle for the claims as the contract was not founded on an "instrument" as required by Rule 14.05(3)(d), and the claims against the individual respondent for independent tort required an action and possibly a trial, not an application.

The court also declined to grant execution remedies without proper service and an opportunity for the respondents to participate.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for an interlocutory injunction to stay a decision lifting a stop work order, the court determined costs.

The applicant argued it was a public interest litigant and should not pay costs.

The court found the applicant's strategy of narrowing issues to natural justice lacked evidentiary support on the merits and that it was irresponsible to hide behind a lack of funds after asserting it could meet undertaking requirements.

Costs were fixed at $27,000 payable to the developer on a substantial indemnity basis and $5,000 payable to the municipality.