M. Lerner

The plaintiff, a witness in a sexual assault re-trial, sued a newspaper and its reporter for negligence after her identity was published in breach of a court-ordered publication ban.

The court found that while breach of a publication ban does not automatically result in civil liability, the newspaper owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.

The reporter breached the standard of care of a reasonably prudent journalist by failing to verify the scope of the publication ban.

The court concluded that the publication caused the plaintiff to suffer compensable psychological injury, including social anxiety disorder and agoraphobia, and awarded $40,000 in general damages against the newspaper.

The action against the reporter personally was dismissed on consent.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action arising from a shotgun buy-sell offer in a partnership dispute.

The plaintiffs claimed the offer was invalid, and alleged breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and oppression.

The court found that the shotgun buy-sell offer was valid and complied with the partnership agreement.

The court also dismissed the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and oppression, finding that the defendants were entitled to exercise their contractual rights.

However, the court directed a trial on three specific breach of contract issues relating to closing arrangements and the calculation of net earnings.

The respondents brought a motion to transfer a Commercial List application from Toronto to Kitchener.

The underlying dispute involved two shareholders disagreeing over the implementation of a Transition Agreement and the proposed removal of one shareholder as a director.

The court applied a holistic balancing of the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding that the applicant resided and worked in Toronto, and that the Commercial List could accommodate the scheduling, the court concluded the respondents failed to demonstrate that Kitchener was a more desirable venue.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the applicants.

In CCAA restructuring proceedings involving a retail apparel company, the monitor sought approval of an asset sale agreement for the debtor’s Costa Blanca business and the debtor sought an extension of the stay of proceedings.

The court considered the criteria under ss. 36(3) and (4) of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and found the sale process had been conducted fairly and transparently and that the proposed transaction provided the best available consideration to creditors, notwithstanding that the purchaser was related to the debtor.

Approval of the sale was granted subject to a condition requiring the transaction to close by a specified deadline, failing which the debtor and monitor were required to seek further court directions.

The court also granted the debtor’s request to extend the stay of proceedings, approve liquidation of certain store inventory and fixtures, continue a key employee retention plan, and authorize repayment of secured loans.