Mark Polley

The defendants, Global News and its journalists, brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action brought by a Member of Parliament.

The defamation claim arose from news stories alleging the MP advised a Chinese diplomat to delay the release of two detained Canadians.

The court found that the defendants' expression related to a matter of public interest.

However, the plaintiff demonstrated that his defamation action had substantial merit and that the defendants' defenses of truth/justification and responsible communication were not valid.

The court concluded that the public interest in allowing the defamation proceeding to continue, to determine the truth of the serious allegations and vindicate the plaintiff's reputation, outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression.

The defendants' motion to dismiss was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought an order to compel the sale of assets (a property, rural land, and vehicles) under Rule 45.01 and 45.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, alleging asset deterioration and seeking payment into court.

The defendants raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing a Master could not vary a judge's preservation order or grant mandatory injunctive relief.

The Master declined jurisdiction, finding that compelling a sale would effectively set aside or vary existing preservation orders made by a judge, and that mandatory orders are exclusively for judges.

Alternatively, the Master found that even if jurisdiction existed, the relief would not be granted as the assets were adequately protected by existing orders and undertakings, and compelling a sale would prejudice the defendants and a non-party (Jonathan Rewa) without a proven claim.

The motion was dismissed.

The Ontario government cancelled an electric car subsidy program but extended it for a two-month transition period.

The applicant, Tesla Motors Canada ULC, was explicitly excluded from this transition program by a condition limiting it to "franchised automobile dealerships." Tesla sought judicial review, arguing the exclusion was arbitrary, unlawful, and made for an improper purpose without procedural fairness.

The court found the decision to exclude Tesla was arbitrary, unrelated to the stated policy goal of protecting small to mid-sized dealers, and constituted an egregious exercise of discretion for an improper purpose.

The court quashed the minister's decision to implement the transitional program.

In CCAA proceedings involving a payday lending enterprise, class members in Ontario consumer class actions moved for approval of three settlement agreements forming part of a broader global resolution of litigation involving the debtor companies, their directors and officers, and related parties.

The settlements resolved certain class claims and partially resolved a third‑party lender claim, providing more than $10 million in recovery with potential participation in future litigation proceeds.

The court applied established settlement approval factors including likelihood of success, litigation risks, counsel recommendations, absence of objections, and arm’s‑length negotiations.

The court concluded that the settlements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class and the restructuring process.

In proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act arising from the insolvency of a payday lending enterprise, class members moved for approval of settlement administration measures related to consumer class action settlements.

The requested approvals included a settlement distribution protocol, notice plan, privacy and information management protocol, and appointment of a claims administrator.

A third‑party creditor that had purchased loan receivables from the debtor sought accommodation to assert an equitable set‑off against class members’ settlement recoveries.

The court held that the creditor’s claim lacked the close connection required for equitable set‑off and was effectively a prejudgment garnishment against settlement funds.

The administrative protocols were approved as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of class members.

Following dismissal of a motion to extend an interim injunction relating to demolition of a historic school building and the discontinuance of a related judicial review application, a respondent school board sought costs against the applicant.

The applicant argued he was a public interest litigant acting to preserve a heritage building under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The court reviewed the principles governing costs against public interest litigants and applied factors including lack of personal financial interest, the broader public importance of heritage preservation, and the litigant’s good‑faith conduct.

The court concluded the applicant qualified as a public interest litigant and had not acted vexatiously or abusively.

Consistent with the usual approach in public interest litigation, the court declined to order costs.

The plaintiff brought an action against 39 defendants, including lawyers, police officers, and private investigators, seeking $20 million in damages for various torts including abuse of process, negligent investigation, and conspiracy.

The defendants moved to strike the claim.

The court found the action was a collateral attack on previous court orders finding the plaintiff in contempt of court.

The court dismissed the action in its entirety as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and alternatively struck the claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

Substantial costs were awarded to the defendants.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a costs order made by a case management judge in favour of certain defendants after the moving party had noted them in default.

The underlying dispute arose from procedural disagreements concerning the timing of a jurisdiction motion and related examinations.

The case management judge found the default tactic unreasonable and unnecessary given the defendants’ clear intention to defend and the availability of a scheduled case conference to resolve the procedural issues.

The court held there was no basis to doubt the correctness of the costs decision and that the dispute raised no issue of general importance warranting leave to appeal.

Leave to appeal the costs order was denied.