Melissa Mustafa

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from an appeal where VAC Developments Limited's counterclaim against Mr. Williams was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed VAC's appeal from that judgment.

Mr. Williams sought full indemnity costs for the appeal and a fresh evidence motion, but the court awarded partial indemnity costs for the appeal, finding no grounds for a heightened award.

For the fresh evidence motion, which was occasioned by an unsupported allegation in Mr. Williams' factum, the court awarded reduced costs to Mr. Williams and also to Mr. Lakhani, a third party who intervened, acknowledging their partial responsibility for the motion's necessity.

This is an appeal from an anti-SLAPP motion.

The appellant, VAC Developments Limited, sought to overturn the dismissal of its $1.5 million defamation counterclaim against the respondent, Agin Williams.

Williams had publicly alleged that VAC failed to address racist threats and dismissed him in reprisal for involving the police.

The motion judge dismissed VAC's counterclaim under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, finding VAC had not shown substantial merit or sufficiently serious harm to outweigh the public interest in protecting Williams' expression.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, agreeing that VAC failed to demonstrate sufficiently serious harm, which is a critical component of the public interest balancing test in anti-SLAPP motions.

This is a costs decision following a successful anti-SLAPP motion brought by Agin Williams against Vac Developments Limited, which resulted in the dismissal of the company's counterclaim.

Williams sought full indemnity costs of $94,883.60 and $20,000 in damages.

Vac Developments conceded costs were payable but argued the amount was inflated, proposing $20,000.

The court awarded Williams $45,200 in costs (fees and disbursements of $40,000 plus HST), finding the amount sought excessive but justifying a full indemnity award due to the punitive nature of the counterclaim and power imbalance.

No damages were awarded as bad faith or improper purpose was not found, nor evidence of damages presented during the motion.

The applicant, a former employee, brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the respondent employer's $1.5 million counterclaim for defamation, injurious falsehood, and unlawful interference with economic interests.

The counterclaim arose from the applicant's statements to CTV News regarding alleged workplace racism and his subsequent layoff.

The court found that while the respondent met the threshold for substantial merit regarding the defamation claim and the applicant's fair comment defence might not succeed, the public interest in protecting the applicant's expression on anti-Black racism in the workplace overwhelmingly outweighed the public interest in allowing the disproportionate and unsubstantiated counterclaim to continue.

The counterclaim was dismissed.

The applicants sought urgent judicial review of decisions by the Toronto Soccer Association and Ontario Soccer Association that disqualified a youth girls' soccer team from a championship game, suspended their coach, and fined the league for allegedly playing ineligible 12-year-old players on a 13-year-old team.

The Superior Court of Justice assumed jurisdiction, finding the decisions were of a public nature.

The court set aside the associations' decisions, holding that they breached basic rules of procedural fairness by failing to provide adequate notice of the charges and sanctions, and by denying the applicants a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Full indemnity costs were awarded against the respondents due to their reprehensible conduct, including ignoring the court's initial order.

The plaintiffs brought an ex parte motion for a Mareva injunction to register a charge against the defendant's property.

The defendant had anticipatorily breached an agreement of purchase and sale for the plaintiffs' residential property.

The court found the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case and met the five-part test for a Mareva injunction, noting the defendant had taken her property off the market and was travelling to India with no return date.

The motion was granted.