Melissa Seal

The plaintiff, Kenaidan Contracting Ltd., brought a defamation claim against Lancaster Group Inc. and its officers for statements made in an open letter to the City of Hamilton and subsequent media interviews regarding alleged mismanagement of a Pan Am Games construction project and unpaid invoices.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the defamation claim.

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

While the plaintiff's defamation claim had substantial merit, the defendants successfully demonstrated valid defences of justification and fair comment regarding the alleged mismanagement and outstanding payments.

The court also found that the harm suffered by the plaintiff was not sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting the expression, especially considering the plaintiff's prior self-inflicted reputational damage and the nature of the allegations.

The motion to dismiss the defamation proceedings was granted.

The Plaintiffs moved to have the Defendant found in contempt for allegedly breaching an interim order by making statements in a private chat group.

The Defendant argued the Plaintiffs breached the implied undertaking rule by relying on these posts and that the postings did not contravene the order.

The court granted the Plaintiffs leave to rely on the postings but dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the Defendant's conduct was not clearly in breach of the order, which should be narrowly construed given the importance of free expression in defamation cases.

The court also noted the Defendant's immediate removal of the post upon request demonstrated an intention to comply.

The Plaintiff, Fourteen Estates Limited, brought a motion to have two separate actions (a contract dispute/lien action and a libel action) share common processes and proceed on a common timetable.

The Defendant, Mandy Marie Jensen, opposed the motion, arguing it would complicate and delay the lien action and increase costs due to separate counsel.

The court, applying Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found significant factual overlap concerning the quality of construction work in both actions.

The court determined that sharing common processes would lead to efficiency and substantial cost savings for all parties, outweighing the defendant's concerns.

The motion was granted, and the parties were ordered to prepare a revised common timetable.

The plaintiff, a former insurance producer, sued DLK Insurance Brokers Ltd. and its partners for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, claiming he was promised an ownership interest in the business.

The defendants denied any such agreement and counterclaimed for a deficit in the plaintiff's commissions and damages for soliciting clients after his resignation.

The court found the plaintiff not credible, dismissed his claims for lack of a proven contract or unjust enrichment, and also dismissed the defendants' counterclaims for the commission deficit (due to forgiveness) and lost business (due to insufficient evidence of solicitation by the plaintiff alone).

The court determined costs following a successful summary judgment motion by the Belleville defendants, dismissing the action against them.

The plaintiffs sought to defer the costs decision or reduce the quantum, arguing potential Bullock/Sanderson orders, impecuniosity, and public interest litigation.

The court dismissed the deferral request, finding no exceptional circumstances to deviate from the normative approach to costs.

It found the plaintiffs were of modest means but not impecunious, requiring robust evidence for such a claim.

The court also rejected the "pro bono litigant" analogy for parties represented under a contingency fee agreement, citing the Solicitors Act.

Ultimately, costs were fixed at $47,801.47, jointly and severally against the plaintiffs, reflecting a reduction from the partial indemnity amount due to the plaintiffs' modest means and access to justice considerations.

The Belleville police defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action against them for negligent investigation, false imprisonment, wrongful arrest, and Charter breaches.

The plaintiffs had been arrested for possession of property obtained by crime after picking up merchandise from Lowe's that was ordered using fraudulent credit cards.

The court granted the motion, finding that the claims for false arrest and Charter breaches were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Furthermore, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the negligent investigation claim, as the investigating officer had reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charges and met the standard of care of a reasonable police officer.

Correctional officers sued a union official and the union for defamation arising from statements made in a regional president’s report delivered at a national union assembly describing the plaintiffs as conducting a campaign of “lies and untruths” during a union raiding effort.

The court found the statements were defamatory and made on an occasion of qualified privilege because they were delivered by a union officer to union members regarding union affairs.

However, the privilege was defeated because the language accusing the plaintiffs of lying was irrelevant to the reporting duty and motivated by an ulterior purpose to discredit and intimidate those attempting to challenge the union’s bargaining status.

The court also found actual malice based on a coordinated effort to label opponents as liars during the raid.

Each plaintiff was awarded $25,000 in general damages and $7,000 in aggravated damages.

On the counterclaim, defamatory internet publications about the union were proven but resulted only in nominal damages to the union.