Nick Papageorge

This endorsement addresses procedural directions for a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario from a Divisional Court decision dismissing Adam Knauff’s application for judicial review of decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The moving party seeks clarification of the test for leave to appeal, referencing recent Court of Appeal decisions, and requested a five-judge panel.

The Court directs that the motion for leave to appeal will be heard orally, and sets timelines and procedures for intervention motions.

The appellant, a non-profit organization, sought public interest standing to bring nine applications for judicial review challenging decisions made by the Ontario Integrity Commissioner under the Lobbyists Registration Act.

The Divisional Court quashed the applications, finding the appellant lacked standing.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing that the applications did not raise a serious justiciable issue as they merely challenged individual exercises of discretion rather than statutory interpretation.

The Court also agreed that the applications were not a reasonable and effective means to bring the issues before the courts, as they would conflict with the statutory scheme and its strict confidentiality provisions.

This appeal concerned the procedural fairness requirements when a court, on its own motion, strikes the pleadings of a self-represented Indigenous party for alleged contempt and abuse of process.

The motion judge had found the appellant, an alleged protest leader, in defiance of court orders, struck his pleadings, and granted a permanent injunction with significant costs.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by conflating contempt and abuse of process, failing to provide the appellant with adequate procedural safeguards, and denying him a fair opportunity to be heard, especially given his self-represented and Indigenous status.

The appeal was allowed, the orders striking pleadings and granting the permanent injunction were set aside, and the costs award was also set aside.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the successful defendant sought costs of $78,104.24 on a full indemnity basis.

The defendant, a lawyer, claimed costs for his own time spent as a self-represented litigant before retaining counsel.

The court found that full indemnity costs were not appropriate and that the time claimed by the defendant for his own work was excessive and not fully attributable to lost remunerative activity.

The court fixed the defendant's costs at $45,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiff brought a defamation action against the defendant regarding Twitter posts that highlighted the plaintiff's past involvement with white supremacist organizations and criticized the City of Hamilton for employing him in its IT department.

The defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that while the defamation claim had substantial merit, the plaintiff failed to show that the defendant had no valid defences of fair comment and justification.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish that the harm he suffered outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendant's expressions regarding municipal accountability and public safety.

The plaintiff, a retired insurance producer, brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that both 'assigned' and 'developed' clients should be included in the calculation of his deferred compensation pool under his employment contract.

The defendant employer argued that only 'developed' clients were included.

The court found no ambiguity in the employment contract, concluding that the clear language of the agreement allocated only 'new customers' (developed clients) to the deferred compensation pool.

The plaintiff's motion and claim were dismissed.

RBC Dominion Securities Inc. (RBCDS) sought leave to amend its statement of defence to a counterclaim by Jeffrey Kowal, introducing new grounds for his employment termination.

Kowal did not oppose the amendment but sought compensation for prejudice in costs.

The court granted leave to amend, finding that while RBCDS was successful in obtaining the amendment, Kowal was more successful on the issue of terms, particularly costs.

The court ordered RBCDS to pay Kowal $10,000 in costs as a condition of filing the amended defence, acknowledging the delay by RBCDS and the additional work required by Kowal.