Matthew Philip Tunley

The appellant challenged an order striking his claim alleging a long-running campaign of defamation and economic harm connected to securities-regulatory proceedings.

The Court of Appeal held that the action was barred by the ultimate 15-year limitation period under s. 15 of the Limitations Act, 2002 because the pleadings showed that the appellant knew the material facts underlying his claims by no later than 2004.

The court interpreted s. 15(4)(c) as tolling the ultimate limitation period only where wilful concealment or misleading by the defendant prevented discovery of the claim, and found that requirement was not met on the pleaded facts.

Leave to cross-appeal costs was granted, the no-costs order was set aside as an error in principle, and partial indemnity costs of the motion and agreed appeal costs were awarded to the respondents.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The appellant real estate developers sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) regarding a cost-sharing dispute with an electricity distributor.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding the OEB had merely provided an opinion and had not exercised a statutory power of decision.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the OEB's interpretation of the Distribution System Code to resolve the parties' complaint constituted a final, binding decision under its exclusive statutory jurisdiction.

As such, the decision was of a sufficiently public character to attract public law remedies, including certiorari, and constituted the exercise of a statutory power of decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Enbridge Gas Inc.'s appeal, upholding the Divisional Court's finding that the 1957 franchise agreement between Enbridge and the County of Essex had not expired under the rule against perpetuities.

The court found that the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) erred in law by misapplying the rule against perpetuities, focusing on the duration of the right rather than the vesting of the interest.

The court also held that the Divisional Court was not bound by its earlier decision in Dawn-Euphemia and that the OEB could not impose a new franchise agreement unless the existing one had lapsed or was about to lapse.

The court granted the defendants' motion to strike the Amended Statement of Claim in its entirety, with leave to amend, on the grounds that it amounted to an abuse of process and was time-barred by the 15-year ultimate limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The claim, brought by G. Scott Paterson against the Royal Bank of Canada and others, alleged a campaign of defamation and economic interference culminating in regulatory proceedings by the Ontario Securities Commission.

The court found that the claim sought to re-litigate issues already settled by the OSC and that Paterson was aware of the essential facts giving rise to his claim well before the expiry of the limitation period.

The applicant, West Whitby Landowners Group Inc., sought leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision that dismissed their judicial review application against the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) and Elexicon Energy Inc. The Divisional Court had found it lacked jurisdiction over the OEB's opinion on cost allocation, deeming it not a statutory power of decision affecting legal rights, and that certiorari was unavailable.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, clarifying the test for leave to appeal from the Divisional Court.

The court emphasized that the key consideration for granting leave is the impact the decision will have on the development of Ontario's jurisprudence, particularly in administrative and public law, moving away from a rigid checklist approach.

The applicant, West Whitby Landowners Group Inc. (WWLG), brought an application seeking the court to decide a dispute with Elexicon Energy Inc. regarding the classification and funding of a municipal electrical substation.

This followed an opinion from the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) siding with Elexicon and the Divisional Court's dismissal of WWLG's judicial review application.

The respondents, Elexicon and the OEB, brought a motion to dismiss WWLG's application.

The court dismissed WWLG's application, finding it constituted an abuse of process as it attempted to relitigate a matter already determined by the OEB, and further, that the OEB had exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter concerning compliance with the Distribution System Code.

The moving parties, the Attorney General of Canada and others, brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Morgan J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The appellant municipality appealed an Ontario Energy Board (OEB) decision approving the renewal of a natural gas franchise agreement with the respondent utility.

The municipality objected to a standard cost-sharing provision for pipeline relocation, arguing it conflicted with section 26 of the Drainage Act, which would otherwise require the utility to pay 100% of relocation costs caused by drainage works.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the OEB had broad, exclusive statutory authority under the Municipal Franchises Act to prescribe the terms of the franchise renewal in the public interest, and did not err in law or exceed its jurisdiction by imposing the standard cost-sharing terms.

The appellant municipality appealed an Ontario Energy Board (OEB) decision that approved the renewal of a natural gas franchise agreement with the respondent utility.

The OEB had found that the original 1957 franchise agreement expired by operation of the common law rule against perpetuities and ordered a renewal based on the OEB's Model Franchise Agreement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that while the OEB had jurisdiction to decide the issue, it erred in law by finding the agreement expired.

The Court determined that the utility's rights under the 1957 agreement were vested, not future contingent interests, and therefore the rule against perpetuities did not apply.

The plaintiff sought to amend his 13-year-old Statement of Claim to add a claim under section 15 of the Charter and to include Department of Justice (DOJ) employees as impugned actors.

The defendants opposed, citing prejudice due to delay and arguing the DOJ claim was not legally recognizable.

The court granted leave to add the section 15 Charter claim, finding it was not a new cause of action or that any limitation period was not plain and obvious.

However, the court dismissed the request to add DOJ employees, holding that lawyers acting in their professional capacity for the Crown are generally not personally liable for Charter breaches, distinguishing this from the role of Crown prosecutors in criminal cases.

This endorsement addresses the costs of appeals and a cross-appeal that were previously dismissed.

The appellants proposed an aggregate payment of $300,000 as partial indemnity costs.

The respondents sought higher amounts, with one group seeking full indemnity.

The court found the amounts sought by the respondents to be reasonable and proportionate, noting cooperation among counsel and no duplication of effort.

The court awarded specific partial indemnity costs to each respondent group, totaling $549,082.93.

This is a complex set of appeals concerning anti-SLAPP motions.

The appellants (Catalyst parties) appealed the dismissal of two of their actions (Defamation and Wolfpack actions) and the dismissal of their partial anti-SLAPP motion against a counterclaim.

The court dismissed all appeals, upholding the motion judge's findings that the Catalyst parties' actions were strategic attempts to silence critics, lacked substantial merit against some respondents, and that the public interest in protecting expression outweighed the public interest in continuing the proceedings.

The court also upheld the costs awards against the Catalyst parties, emphasizing the deterrent purpose of anti-SLAPP legislation against abusive litigation.

The applicant developers sought judicial review of two letters from the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) regarding a dispute with an electricity distributor over whether a new substation was an 'expansion' or an 'enhancement'.

The OEB had provided an opinion that the project was an expansion, meaning the developers were responsible for the costs, and declined to refer the matter for a formal hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the OEB's opinion was not the exercise of a statutory power of decision and therefore not subject to judicial review.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicant had no statutory standing to compel the OEB to hold a hearing.

The Court of Appeal heard two appeals concerning defamation actions dismissed under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (anti-SLAPP legislation).

The motion judge had dismissed the actions, finding no valid defence in one case and a potentially valid defence in the other, and in both cases, the public interest in protecting expression outweighed the harm to the plaintiffs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, upholding the dismissal of the defamation actions.

However, it allowed the cross-appeals on costs, finding that the motion judge erred in not awarding full indemnity costs to the successful defendants, as the actions bore the hallmarks of SLAPP lawsuits.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the court determined the appropriate scale and quantum of costs.

The court declined to award full indemnity costs, finding that the plaintiff was not a powerful entity using litigation to intimidate a vulnerable opponent and that the claim had substantial merit.

Applying a modest discount for the defendants' delay in bringing the motion, the court awarded the defendants $75,000 in costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The defendants, a national broadcaster and its employees, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiff, a student travel company, alleged that the defendants' reporting on the death of a student during a trip was defamatory.

The court found that the expression related to a matter of public interest and that the plaintiff failed to show there was no valid defence, specifically the defence of fair comment.

The court also found the balance of harms favoured protecting the expression, and dismissed the action.

The defendant, having been successful in the underlying action regarding its right to rebroadcast a 1984 interview, sought partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff argued the defendant should be deprived of costs due to morally offensive conduct in rebroadcasting the program, which posed a safety risk to the plaintiff.

The court found no morally offensive behaviour, noting the defendant acted responsibly by removing the interview once alerted to the plaintiff's concerns.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs of $9,042.04, holding that sympathy for the plaintiff's situation is not a basis to refuse costs.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the January 11, 2021 decision of Boswell J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties.

Al Jazeera Media Network brought a motion under section 137.1(3) of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action commenced by Rebel News Network Ltd. as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

Rebel News alleged three defamatory statements in an internet article and YouTube video published by Al Jazeera.

The court found that Al Jazeera satisfied its initial burden that the proceeding arose from an expression relating to a matter of public interest.

The burden then shifted to Rebel News to show substantial merit, no valid defence, and that the harm suffered outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression.

The court found Rebel News established substantial merit for its defamation claim.

However, Rebel News failed to show that Al Jazeera had no valid defence, specifically regarding the defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest, as the record raised credibility issues precluding a "deep dive" into the evidence at this stage.

Furthermore, Rebel News failed to provide specific evidence of harm and causation, leading the court to conclude that the public interest in free expression and public debate outweighed the public interest in permitting the action to continue.

Consequently, Al Jazeera's motion was granted, and the action was dismissed.