Marty Rabinovitch

The plaintiff, a former General Manager, brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the defendant employer's counterclaim for damages related to alleged misconduct and breach of contract.

The court found that the plaintiff's statements in his statement of claim, which formed the basis of the motion, did not relate to a matter of public interest, as the dispute was purely private.

Although the counterclaim was found to arise from the plaintiff's expression, the court determined that the public interest in allowing the counterclaim to proceed outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression, given the private nature of the dispute and the substantial merit of the counterclaim.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce minutes of settlement reached in a wrongful dismissal action.

After signing the settlement, the defendant discovered evidence suggesting the plaintiff had performed work for competitors during employment using company resources and had attempted to delete related computer files.

The defendant repudiated the settlement and commenced its own action for damages.

The court held that although a settlement existed, it should not be enforced where enforcement would create a real risk of clear injustice.

Given newly discovered evidence of alleged misconduct that was not reasonably discoverable prior to settlement, the motion to enforce the settlement was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to deliver a psychiatric expert report outside the timelines set by Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, abridgement of time, an adjournment of a trial scheduled under the simplified procedure, and issuance of an interprovincial summons for a witness.

The delay resulted from counsel failing to promptly secure a psychiatric report after indicating at pre-trial that such evidence would be obtained.

The defendants opposed the adjournment, emphasizing proportionality and prejudice caused by the late request.

The court acknowledged the plaintiff’s non-compliance and lack of diligence but held that the interests of justice favoured allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to present expert evidence.

The trial was adjourned with conditions, including that the plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs thrown away by the adjournment.