Niklas Holmberg

The plaintiff, a prominent lawyer and political activist, brought a defamation action against the defendant, an internet broadcaster, over videos alleging the plaintiff was a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic extremism.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment.

The court found the case appropriate for summary judgment, holding that the defendant's statements were defamatory and that the defences of fair comment and responsible communication failed because the statements were presented as facts, lacked a factual foundation, and were made with malice and reckless disregard for the truth.

The court awarded the plaintiff $500,000 in general and aggravated damages and granted a permanent injunction requiring the removal of the videos and prohibiting the defendant from making further statements about the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs previously obtained a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendant from publishing defamatory statements about them.

The defendant was subsequently found in contempt of court for six separate breaches of the injunction by broadcasting hateful and defamatory statements.

At the sentencing hearing, the court considered the defendant's complete lack of remorse, his ongoing attacks on the rule of law, and the hate-motivated nature of the breaches.

The court sentenced the defendant to 18 months in prison, consisting of three consecutive months for each of the six acts of contempt.

The National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) moved to intervene as a friend of the court in the sentencing hearing of the defendant for contempt of court.

The court declined to add NCCM as an intervenor under Rule 13.02, noting the lack of precedent for public interest intervenors in criminal or contempt sentencing at first instance, and that the plaintiff had already raised the contextual arguments NCCM proposed to make.

However, recognizing NCCM's unique position to speak on the harm suffered by the Canadian Muslim community, the court authorized NCCM to file a Community Impact Statement by analogy to s. 722.2(1) of the Criminal Code.

The plaintiff commenced defamation actions against the defendants regarding online broadcasts and internet postings.

A summary judgment motion was scheduled for September 21, 2021.

On September 10, 2021, the defendant retained new counsel, who requested a brief adjournment to prepare a new factum and provide proper representation.

The court denied the adjournment request, finding that the defendant provided no explanation for the late retention of counsel, the plaintiff would be prejudiced by further delay as the alleged defamatory postings remained online, and the administration of justice would not be served by a last-minute adjournment.

The plaintiff moved to amend its statement of claim to increase damages and add allegations regarding the defendant's misuse of a lifetime loyalty program certificate, as well as a claim for unjust enrichment.

The defendant opposed, arguing the amendments introduced a new cause of action after the limitation period expired and failed to properly plead unjust enrichment.

The court allowed most of the amendments, finding they fell within the factual matrix of the existing breach of contract claim.

However, the court refused the amendment adding a claim for unjust enrichment because the plaintiff failed to plead an absence of juristic reason, and struck a reference to a breach of a separate 2011 agreement.

The plaintiffs sought to schedule a sentencing hearing after the defendant was found in civil contempt for violating an injunction prohibiting defamatory statements.

The defendant requested a delay until November to accommodate his putative counsel's schedule.

The court refused the delay, noting the defendant's failure to commit to complying with the injunction and the risk of ongoing racist slurs, and scheduled the hearing for September.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to hold the self-represented defendant in contempt of court for violating a 2019 permanent injunction that prohibited him from publishing defamatory statements about the plaintiffs.

The defendant sought an adjournment to obtain counsel, which the court denied, finding he had ample time and was using the request tactically.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally breached the injunction on multiple occasions through his online broadcasts by repeating defamatory statements about the plaintiffs.

The defendant was found in contempt of court, with a sentencing hearing to be scheduled.

The defendants brought a motion seeking security for costs from the corporate plaintiffs in an action arising from a real estate joint venture.

The plaintiffs, who had no assets in Ontario, argued they were impecunious and that their claims had merit.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet the high evidentiary burden to prove impecuniosity, as they did not provide evidence of efforts to raise funds from their principals or investors.

Balancing the factors, the court ordered the plaintiffs to post $70,000 in security for costs on a partial indemnity scale up to the completion of discoveries.

The appellant purchased commercial property subject to an easement, with a vendor take-back mortgage that would be reduced by $442,000 if the vendor failed to register a valid release of the easement within one year.

The vendor obtained a court order discharging the easement and registered it two days before the deadline, but the order was subsequently appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the purchaser's appeal, holding that while a court order can satisfy the requirement for a release, an order subject to subsisting appeal rights does not provide the bargained-for certainty of good title.

The purchaser was therefore entitled to the $442,000 reduction in the mortgage principal.

The plaintiffs brought a contempt motion against the self-represented defendant for allegedly violating a permanent injunction prohibiting defamatory statements.

At a case conference, the defendant requested an adjournment to retain counsel and apply for legal aid.

The court explained the serious nature of the contempt proceedings, including the potential for a jail term, and adjourned the case conference to allow the defendant time to secure legal representation.

The appellants and respondents, real estate developers, were engaged in two companion actions arising from a joint venture and shareholders' agreement.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the appellants' action, finding a right of first refusal clause in the agreement to be an unenforceable restrictive covenant.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the summary judgment, holding that partial summary judgment was inappropriate given the intertwined facts of the companion actions and the need for a factual matrix to interpret the contract.

A case conference was held to schedule documentary and oral discoveries.

The parties agreed to exchange Affidavits of Documents by September 30, 2019, and to conduct examinations for discovery in November 2019.

The court noted a potential issue regarding Schedule B documents that may require a further case conference if unresolved.

Judgment creditors of a bankrupt company obtained an assignment of the company's claim against its former director for breach of fiduciary duties and failure to supervise.

The creditors commenced an action against the director more than two years after the company's liability was established by judgment.

The central issue was whether the action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that while the creditors lacked capacity to sue in the company's name until after bankruptcy, the company itself had discovered the claim when its shareholders received the trial judgment establishing the director's wrongdoing.

The limitation period ran from that earlier date, making the action time-barred.

The plaintiff sought a Mareva injunction against the Atkinson defendants (Paul Atkinson, Colin Grieve, and Professional Firefighters Advocates Inc.) due to alleged misappropriation of funds intended for the plaintiff's Retiree's Cancer Claim Fund.

The court found a strong prima facie case of tortious and fraudulent conduct, including false misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, and conspiracy.

Evidence indicated the defendants had taken steps to dissipate assets by transferring residential properties to their spouses shortly after the plaintiff's demand letter and notice of motion.

The court granted the Mareva injunction, finding irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, with provisions for the defendants' living and legal expenses.

The plaintiffs (Ridels) brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant (Goldberg), relying on findings from a prior action against e3m Investments Inc. and Mr. Cassin.

Goldberg brought a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing the Ridels' claim was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court dismissed the Ridels' motion, finding that Justice Pepall's prior findings against e3m did not translate into personal liability for Goldberg, and that Goldberg was not a "privy" to e3m in a way that would bind him.

The court granted Goldberg's motion, finding that the Ridels' action was commenced outside the two-year limitation period, as both the Ridels and e3m (as predecessor) had discovered the claim much earlier than the action's commencement date.

The court rejected the argument that the limitation period was suspended pending the outcome of an appeal in the prior action.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their action as barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellants had obtained a trial judgment against e3m Investments Inc. more than two years prior, but commenced an action against the respondent (e3m's president and sole director) within two years of e3m's appeal dismissal and subsequent bankruptcy.

The appellants obtained an assignment of the trustee's cause of action under section 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Court of Appeal found that the limitation issue involved mixed questions of fact and law that could not be properly determined on a Rule 21.01(1)(a) motion with only pleadings on the record, and allowed the appeal.

The appellants appealed an order from the Superior Court of Justice finding that a transformer easement had expired.

The sole issue was whether the easement continued to be required for an approach lighting system for runway 30 at the Windsor airport.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the appellants failed to provide evidence supporting their position that the easement remained necessary.

The appellants' own witness testimony, combined with evidence that the easement had not been required since 1965, long-term plans for runway 30 that did not contemplate the lighting system or transformer, and communications from Nav Canada all supported the finding that the easement had expired.

Class counsel brought a motion for approval of their legal fees and disbursements following the settlement of a securities class proceeding for $29.5 million.

Counsel sought $5.9 million in fees based on a contingency agreement.

The court reviewed the factors for approving class counsel fees, noting the early settlement and the high hourly rates docketed.

The court reduced the requested fee, approving $2.775 million plus HST as fair and reasonable compensation for the risk assumed and results achieved, along with full recovery of disbursements.

The plaintiff moved for approval of a $29.5 million settlement in a securities class action against the defendants for alleged misrepresentations in continuous disclosure documents regarding mortgage origination practices.

The settlement also resolved a companion Ontario Securities Commission proceeding.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the significant litigation risks, the complex damages calculations, and the immediate business implications for the corporate defendant.

The court also approved the Distribution Protocol, Notice Plan, and Claim Form, with minor modifications to extend the deficiency rectification period.

The defendants successfully brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action.

In this costs endorsement, the court considered whether to depart from the presumption of full indemnity costs under s. 137.1(7).

The court denied the plaintiff's request to file a further affidavit and found no reason to depart from the statutory presumption.

The court awarded full indemnity costs of $282,943.42 to the defendant Bent and partial indemnity costs of $30,000 to the defendant Lerners LLP.