Who is Michael S. Teitelbaum?

Michael S. Teitelbaum is an Ontario lawyer with 3 court cases on record from 2015 to 2016.

What courts has Michael S. Teitelbaum appeared in?

Michael S. Teitelbaum has appeared in Superior Court of Justice.

How many cases has Michael S. Teitelbaum handled?

Michael S. Teitelbaum has 3 cases on record from 2015 to 2016.

What judges has Michael S. Teitelbaum appeared before?

Michael S. Teitelbaum has most frequently appeared before Justice Edward P. Belobaba, Justice Paul M. Perell, Justice L. A. Pattillo.

Michael S. Teitelbaum

3 total

Daniels Midtown Corporation v. Mariai, 2016 ONSC 1656

The defendant sought leave to appeal an order dismissing his motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' defamation action under Rule 21.01(1)(a).

The underlying action involved alleged defamatory statements made by the defendant, a condominium unit owner and former board president, about the developer.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision that the defence of privilege involved mixed fact and law requiring a complete factual record.

SCJMar 8, 2016

Applicant Counsel

Daniels Midtown Corporation et al v. Mariai, 2015 ONSC 7551

Following the dismissal of a Rule 21 motion seeking to strike a defamation action, the court determined the appropriate costs order.

The moving party had attempted to use Rule 21 to establish that a defence of privilege would succeed, which the court previously held to be an improper use of the rule.

The successful plaintiffs sought costs payable immediately under Rule 57.03(1), while the moving party requested costs in the cause on the basis that the defence might ultimately succeed at trial.

The court held that the motion represented a procedural misstep but that fairness required a moderated approach.

Costs of $24,187.37 were awarded to the plaintiffs in any event of the cause.

SCJDec 3, 2015

Applicant Counsel

Daniels Midtown Corporation v. Mariai, 2015 ONSC 6568

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) and Rule 21.01(3)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal of a defamation action commenced by developers of a condominium project.

The defendant argued that the alleged statements were protected by absolute or qualified privilege and that the claim was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court held that Rule 21 cannot be used by a defendant to prove the success of a defence such as privilege; rather, the rule is intended to determine whether a plaintiff’s claim is plainly and obviously untenable in law.

The motion also failed because the defendant provided no evidentiary record supporting the abuse-of-process argument.

The court dismissed the motion and allowed the defamation action to proceed.

SCJOct 23, 2015