Michael Nemanic

This is a costs decision following the dismissal of a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

The plaintiff developer sought $300,000 in damages for defamation and trespass against a local resident and engineering student who raised environmental, social, and safety concerns about a mall redevelopment.

The court dismissed the claim as a SLAPP and awarded the defendant full-indemnity costs.

This decision addresses the quantum of costs, with the defendant seeking $156,394.54 and the plaintiff arguing for a cap of $100,000.

The court awarded the full amount sought, finding it fair and reasonable given the circumstances, including the defendant's reasonable settlement offers, the plaintiff's expansion of the motion scope, and consistency with other anti-SLAPP costs awards.

This decision concerns an anti-SLAPP motion brought by Pierre Roy, a student and local resident, against Sheridan Retail Inc., a developer redeveloping Sheridan Mall in Mississauga.

The developer sued Roy for defamation, inducing breach of contract, interference with economic relations, and trespass after he raised environmental, social, and safety concerns about the redevelopment.

The court found the lawsuit to be a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) aimed at silencing Roy’s public expression.

The court dismissed the developer’s claim, refused to allow the developer to “prune” its claim to trespass only, and awarded Roy $25,000 in damages and full-indemnity costs.

The plaintiff, 1672736 Ontario Inc. (Dunpar Homes), sued the defendants, Ezio Savini (Chief Building Official) and the City of Mississauga, for over $10 million in damages, alleging misfeasance in public office and negligence due to significant delays in building permit applications and unlawful stop work orders for its Streetsville Centre housing project.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claim, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the plaintiff's pleadings sufficiently disclosed reasonable causes of action for both misfeasance in public office and negligence.

The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff $15,000 in costs for the motion.

The applicant purchaser sought declarations that the respondent vendor was not entitled to a 'Bonus Density' payment under their Agreement of Purchase and Sale, and an order discharging a $25 million security mortgage.

The dispute arose after a Minister's Zoning Order (MZO) approved an aggregate density for a combined transit-oriented development that included the subject property and adjacent third-party lands.

The court held that the MZO did not trigger the Bonus Density payment because it did not allocate density specifically to the subject property, making the determination premature.

The court also dismissed the applicant's request to discharge the security mortgage and the respondent's motion to convert the application into an action.

The applicant builder commenced construction on several blocks of a housing development without building permits.

The City's Chief Building Official issued Orders to Comply and Stop Work Orders.

The applicant appealed the orders under section 25 of the Building Code Act, arguing they were impossible to comply with due to the City's delays in issuing permits.

Although the appeal was moot because the orders had since been cleared, the court exercised its discretion to hear it.

The court affirmed the Orders to Comply, finding they reasonably required the applicant to stop illegal construction immediately.

However, the court rescinded the Stop Work Orders because the Act requires a breach of an Order to Comply before a Stop Work Order can be issued, which had not occurred.