Nick Melchiorre

The defendant was partially successful on an anti-SLAPP motion, resulting in the dismissal of the majority of the plaintiffs' claims.

The defendant sought full indemnity costs and damages for bad faith.

The court awarded the defendant substantial indemnity costs of $17,500, finding that while the principles of s. 137.1(7) applied, a reduction was warranted due to the plaintiffs' offer to settle and excessive time claimed.

The claim for damages under s. 137.1(9) was dismissed, as the court found the defendant's counter-offer punitive and lacked evidence of damages.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court previously dismissed the claims relating to online expressions on matters of public interest.

In these supplementary reasons, the court considered whether s. 137.1 requires the dismissal of the entire proceeding, including claims for harassment and an expression unrelated to the public interest.

The court held that 'proceeding' in s. 137.1 does not mandate an 'all or nothing' dismissal, and claims not grounded in public interest expression must be allowed to continue.

The moving party brought a motion for interim relief within a motion to change a final order, seeking an increase in spousal support from $590 per month to approximately $1,500 per month pending determination of the variation application.

The moving party, suffering from advanced Parkinson’s disease and unable to work, argued that the responding party’s increased income and his ongoing need justified an interim increase.

The court reviewed the governing principles for interim variation of final support orders, including the requirement to establish a prima facie case for variation together with hardship or urgency.

Although the responding party’s income had increased modestly, the court found no evidence of increased expenses or uncovered medical costs and concluded that the threshold test was not met.

The motion for interim variation was therefore dismissed.

The solicitors for the corporate plaintiff brought a motion to be removed as solicitors of record.

The plaintiff corporation was owned by three individuals who were in disagreement and unable to provide collaborative instructions.

The solicitors also cited an unpaid retainer and a conflict of interest arising from their representation of one of the shareholders in a related matter.

Two of the shareholders opposed the motion, arguing prejudice to the corporation.

The court granted the motion, finding that the solicitors were in an impossible position due to the lack of instructions, conflict of interest, and unpaid fees, subject to the condition that they fulfill outstanding undertakings from discoveries.