Murray Stieber

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his defamation action.

The action arose from a statement of defence in a wrongful dismissal suit alleging the appellant installed undisclosed surveillance cameras in employee living accommodations.

The motion judge found the respondents established the substantial truth of the allegations, noting the appellant failed to file responding affidavit material as required by Rule 20.02(2).

The Court of Appeal found sufficient evidence supported the motion judge's conclusion and dismissed the appeal.

Following a successful appeal, the appellants and respondents agreed that the court's previous statement regarding costs at first instance was erroneous.

The court received written submissions on the proper disposition of costs at first instance.

Given that the appeal reversed the partial summary judgment granted to the respondents, both parties were entirely unsuccessful at first instance.

The court set aside the costs order below and remitted the costs of the motions at first instance to the trial judge, who would be in the best position to assess their relative importance in light of the trial result.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision granting partial summary judgment to the respondent municipalities.

The motion judge had dismissed the appellants' claim that the expropriation of their mall lands for a new Toyota plant was illegal per se.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that genuine issues for trial existed regarding whether the expropriation price was below fair market value (constituting an illegal bonus under the Municipal Act), whether the expropriation conformed to the official plan under the Planning Act, and whether the municipality acted in bad faith.

The individual appellant appealed an order striking her claim and denying her leave to represent the corporate appellant under Rule 15.01.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge correctly concluded the individual appellant lacked legal capacity to sue, as the cause of action belonged to the corporation.

The Court further held it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal regarding the Rule 15.01 order, as it was interlocutory and appealable only to the Divisional Court with leave.