3 total
Motion to strike affidavit on judicial review dismissed; court suggested obtaining hearing transcript instead.
The moving party, General Motors of Canada Company, brought a motion to strike an affidavit filed by the responding party in a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.
The affidavit disputed the Tribunal's recollection of the responding party's oral testimony regarding her knowledge of a settlement.
The court dismissed the motion, noting that the affidavit evidence would be admissible under the Keeprite principles to fill a gap in the record if no transcript was available.
The court suggested that seeking an order for the production of the hearing transcript would be the most efficient way to resolve the evidentiary dispute.
Motion to strike affidavit on judicial review dismissed; evidence potentially admissible to fill record gap.
The moving party, General Motors of Canada Company, brought a motion to strike an affidavit filed by the responding party in an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to strike, noting that the affidavit evidence could be admissible under the Keeprite principles to fill a gap in the record, as the Tribunal had declined to provide a transcript without a court order.
The court directed the parties on the process for seeking production of the transcript.
Defamation action dismissed under anti-SLAPP legislation; public interest in protecting expression outweighed unproven harm.
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.
