Paul Stewart Champ

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to halt a proposed class proceeding by downtown Ottawa residents and businesses against "Freedom Convoy" protestors, organizers, and funders.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs demonstrated grounds to believe their claims had substantial merit and that no valid defence was likely to prevail, and that the public interest in allowing the litigation to continue outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression.

This is a case management order in a class action concerning the scheduling of an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, seeking to stay or dismiss the action for unduly limiting freedom of expression.

The court set a timetable for the anti-SLAPP motion, making it returnable on October 11, 2023, and ordered that no further steps in the proceeding could be taken until this motion was resolved, in accordance with the Act.

A potential motion for change of venue was also noted but deferred.

The Superior Court of Justice rendered a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action under anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court addressed the appropriate scale and quantum of costs, considering the statutory presumption of full indemnity costs for successful anti-SLAPP motions and recent conflicting Court of Appeal guidance on costs guidelines.

The court awarded the Canadian Nurses Association Defendants $250,000.00 on a full indemnity basis and the Together News Inc. Defendants $65,000.00 on a substantial indemnity basis, finding these amounts fair and reasonable given the case's complexity and the parties' expectations prior to new appellate guidance.

This endorsement addresses costs submissions following a decision on competing pleading motions in a class action.

The plaintiffs were substantially successful in their motion to amend pleadings, while the defendants' parallel motion to strike was largely unsuccessful.

Despite the plaintiffs' success, the court declined to award costs to either party, citing the public importance of the litigation, which involves exploring the boundaries of constitutionally protected protest rights versus the rights of individual citizens to seek compensation for disruption.

This motion addressed the form of the Statement of Claim in a proposed class proceeding related to the "Freedom Convoy" protest in Ottawa.

The plaintiffs sought to amend their claim, while a group of defendants moved to strike it.

The court found that the proposed Statement of Claim disclosed plausible causes of action for private and public nuisance, and joint liability, including for punitive damages.

The court largely allowed the plaintiffs' motion to amend, granting leave to issue a further fresh as amended statement of claim and to add new defendants, but ordered the removal of certain paragraphs deemed extraneous, inflammatory, or evidentiary.

The defendants' motion to strike was largely dismissed.

This endorsement concerns the continuation of a motion by the plaintiffs to extend a Mareva Injunction and a cross-motion by certain defendants to dissolve it.

Due to the recent service of voluminous motion material, the plaintiffs requested an adjournment to review the material and conduct cross-examinations.

The court found the request reasonable and granted the adjournment, extending the existing injunction.

All matters were adjourned to a later date for a virtual hearing.

The court also noted a separate forfeiture application by the Attorney General of Ontario under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, which is not intended to affect assets subject to civil judgment for class members.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions related to a Mareva injunction in a class proceeding concerning the 'Freedom Convoy' funds.

The court extended the Mareva injunction with modifications, adjourned motions to dissolve the injunction and amend the statement of claim, and granted a Toronto Dominion Bank interpleader motion to transfer funds to an escrow agent.

The decision also clarified the interplay between the civil Mareva injunction and criminal restraint orders, and addressed issues concerning cryptocurrency seized by police and funds held by a third-party fundraising platform, GiveSendGo LLC.

The court emphasized the importance of keeping separate proceedings distinct while managing related matters.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to extend an ex parte Mareva injunction previously granted against organizers and funders of the Freedom Convoy.

The injunction aimed to restrain the dissipation of assets for potential civil liability to Ottawa residents and businesses.

The court granted a temporary extension and modification of the injunction by consent, allowing certain funds to be transferred to an escrow agent, and adjourned the motion for a further hearing.

The decision emphasized the civil nature of the proceeding, separate from criminal processes.

This proposed class action sought an ex parte Mareva injunction to freeze assets, including cryptocurrency, of organizers and participants in the 'Freedom Convoy' protest in downtown Ottawa.

The plaintiffs, residents, businesses, and employees, alleged damages from private and public nuisance.

The court found an apparently strong case for tort liability and a serious risk of asset dissipation, particularly with funds purposely moved to avoid seizure.

The injunction was granted, freezing funds controlled by the defendants, and the requirement for an undertaking for damages was waived due to the public interest and class action nature of the case.

The court also approved an amendment to the statement of claim to expand plaintiff classes and add defendants.

The plaintiff sought an emergency interlocutory injunction against the defendants, who were involved in a protest causing severe noise disturbance in downtown Ottawa.

The defendants' counsel requested an adjournment, citing insufficient time to review extensive materials and prepare a proper defense.

The court, acknowledging the national importance of the matter and the need for a complete record to craft an enforceable *in persona* injunction, granted the adjournment until February 7, 2022.

The judge emphasized the inherent difficulty of framing an enforceable injunction against a large, fluid group of unnamed parties and the equitable requirement for certainty in such orders.

A unionized health authority employee was suspended for attending work under the influence of alcohol.

After disclosing her alcohol addiction and refusing a last-chance abstinence agreement, the employer terminated her employment; her union grieved and she was reinstated on similar terms, then terminated again for allegedly breaching those terms.

The employee filed a human rights complaint alleging failure to accommodate her disability, and a human rights adjudicator assumed jurisdiction and found discrimination.

The majority held that Manitoba's mandatory dispute resolution clause in The Labour Relations Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the labour arbitrator over all disputes arising from the collective agreement, and that The Human Rights Code does not clearly express legislative intent to grant concurrent jurisdiction to the human rights adjudicator over such disputes.

The appeal was allowed and the reviewing judge's order setting aside the adjudicator's decision was reinstated.

The defendant insurer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for short-term and long-term disability benefits, arguing the claims were statute-barred, no LTD application was submitted, policy breaches occurred, and the insurer was prejudiced by lack of medical evidence.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding that the action was commenced within the applicable limitation period, adequate proof of claim for LTD benefits was submitted, and the insurer was not prejudiced.

Leave was granted to the plaintiff to amend her Statement of Claim.

The appellant, a disabled veteran and freelance journalist, commenced a defamation action in Small Claims Court against the Minister of Veterans Affairs for statements published in The Hill Times characterizing the appellant's criticism of a veterans' pension program as "mistruths" stated to suit his own agenda.

The respondents moved to dismiss the claim under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, which provides for summary dismissal of proceedings arising from expression relating to matters of public interest.

The deputy judge dismissed the claim, finding the statements related to a matter of public interest and that the appellant had not advanced credible and compelling evidence of substantial merit.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether a deputy judge of the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction to make orders under section 137.1.

The court held that deputy judges lack such jurisdiction, as the statute expressly refers to "judge" without including deputy judges, and the Legislature has demonstrated a pattern of expressly referencing deputy judges when it intends to grant them authority.

The Plaintiffs sought costs on a partial indemnity basis after successfully opposing a motion for summary judgment and a Rule 21 motion to strike a claim concerning a breach of their s.6 Charter Mobility Rights.

The Defendant largely agreed to the quantum of costs but disputed the portion related to the novel Charter issue.

The court awarded $30,000 in costs, excluding the $7,000 associated with the novel Charter claim, which was ordered to be 'in the cause'.

The plaintiff moved to compel the defendant to produce three categories of documents: employment applications of successful candidates, assessment notes for successful applicants, and remuneration details for successful applicants.

The defendant resisted on grounds of relevance, privacy, and proportionality.

The court found the documents relevant to the plaintiff's claim of being blacklisted and wrongfully denied re-employment.

While acknowledging privacy concerns, the court ordered production of application packages and assessment documents for successful candidates, subject to the deemed undertaking and potential confidentiality orders.

However, the court limited the production of remuneration documents to aggregated benefit information, finding individual payroll histories disproportionate.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss a civil action on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute arose under a collective agreement and therefore fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitration.

The underlying action concerned an alleged overpayment of approximately $48,000 to a former employee resulting from administrative error despite an agreement that the employee’s salary would be “red-circled.” The court considered whether the essential character of the dispute arose from the interpretation, application, administration, or violation of the collective agreement.

Given that the employee was no longer employed, the memorandum governing the salary arrangement was not incorporated into the collective agreement, and the union itself took the position that the matter was not arbitrable, the court held the dispute did not fall within arbitral jurisdiction.

The motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was therefore denied.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel production of documents from the federal government in aid of cross-examination on an affidavit filed for a pending summary judgment motion based on limitation periods.

The government argued the requested documents were irrelevant because the plaintiffs had never seen them and therefore they could not affect the discoverability analysis under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that documents relating to alleged defamatory communications and investigative conduct were relevant to determining when the cause of action accrued and when the limitation period began to run.

Given the relationship between the merits of the claims and the limitation defence, production was ordered.

The court also directed counsel to consider whether the summary judgment motion should be postponed until documentary production and discovery were completed.

On a Rule 21 motion, the moving parties sought to stay or dismiss a negligence and breach of contract action for want of court jurisdiction.

The court applied the essential character framework and considered whether the dispute arose from collective agreement administration or from alleged promises and representations made outside that framework.

The court held that the pleaded claim, including alleged negligent misrepresentation and reliance relating to disability litigation steps and a missed limitation period, was arguable as a civil negligence claim not confined to labour board exclusivity.

The motion to stay or dismiss was therefore refused, and directions were set for further submissions.