Peter A. Downard

The appellants appealed interlocutory orders granting defamation and harassment injunctions, a publication ban, and substantial costs against them.

The dispute arose after the appellants created websites and online petitions expressing concern about their adult son's relationship with an older man, including hyperlinks to articles about online exploitation.

The Divisional Court found the motions judge applied the wrong test for defamation injunctions and that the websites alone were not clearly defamatory.

However, the court held that hyperlinking to the articles effectively identified the respondents, constituting publication.

The defamation injunction was narrowed to only require removal of the hyperlinks.

The harassment injunction and publication ban were set aside for lacking legal and evidentiary foundation.

The appeal was granted in part, with costs awarded to the appellants.

The defendant, Marc Cohodes, brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a libel action commenced by the plaintiff, Mark Thompson.

The alleged libel imputed fraud against Thompson during his prior employment as a junior lawyer.

The court found that the expression related to a matter of public interest.

However, the plaintiff established grounds to believe his claim had substantial merit, that the defendant had no valid defence (justification or fair comment), and that the harm suffered by the plaintiff was sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting the expression.

The motion to dismiss was denied.

The Defendants sought leave to appeal a series of interim decisions by Snowie J., which included granting injunctions against defamation and harassment, a publication ban, and substantial costs awards, in two separate actions brought by S.R. and V.B. against the Defendants.

The court granted leave to appeal on all issues, finding conflicting legal principles regarding defamation injunctions, uncertainty in the evolving torts of harassment and intrusion upon seclusion, and procedural irregularities and open court principle concerns regarding the publication ban.

The costs award was also subject to appeal as it flowed from the underlying decisions.

The applicants, members of the Ontario Medical Association (OMA), brought a motion for interlocutory orders in a governance dispute concerning a proposed Physician Services Agreement (PSA).

They sought a new notice of general meeting, a revised proxy form, a comprehensive membership list including phone numbers, and the appointment of a neutral chair.

The court dismissed requests for a new notice of meeting, the expanded membership list, and a neutral chair, finding no strong case for intervention on those points.

However, the court granted the request to void the OMA's circulated proxy form, deeming it unhelpful, unclear, unbalanced, and unfair, and directed the OMA to prepare a revised form.

The court exercised its jurisdiction under sections 297 and 332 of the Corporations Act to ensure the fair conduct of the members' meeting and the integrity of the proxy system.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their defamation claims for failure to comply with the notice provision in s. 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act.

The appellants had sent a notice to the respondent newspaper regarding articles that alleged the appellants fabricated criminal charges.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in law by failing to consider the notice in the context of all surrounding circumstances.

The Court held that the notice sufficiently conveyed the essence of the matter complained of, allowing the respondents to take appropriate steps to mitigate damages.

The defendants in a defamation action brought under the simplified procedure moved for an order extending the time for oral examination for discovery from two hours to 21 hours, and for a further and better affidavit of documents.

The court partially granted the request for further documentary production, ordering the plaintiff to produce documents relating to its relationship with CAIR and certain individuals, as these were relevant to the defendants' detailed plea of justification.

However, the court dismissed the request to extend the oral discovery time, finding no jurisdiction or justification to depart from the strict two-hour limit mandated by Rule 76.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his defamation action.

The action arose from a statement of defence in a wrongful dismissal suit alleging the appellant installed undisclosed surveillance cameras in employee living accommodations.

The motion judge found the respondents established the substantial truth of the allegations, noting the appellant failed to file responding affidavit material as required by Rule 20.02(2).

The Court of Appeal found sufficient evidence supported the motion judge's conclusion and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant newspaper intervened in a civil action to challenge an ex parte publication ban and sealing order obtained by a non-party regarding his personal health information.

The motion judge granted the non-party an indefinite publication ban and awarded full indemnity costs against the newspaper.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision to award costs against the intervenor, finding it was motivated partly by business interests and the information was highly personal.

However, the Court set aside the full indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the newspaper, and substituted an award of partial indemnity costs.

The appellants brought a defamation action against the respondent newspaper and reporter over an article concerning a proposed private golf course development and alleged political influence.

At trial, the jury found for the appellants and awarded damages.

The Court of Appeal set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial, recognizing a new defence of responsible journalism.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, formally recognizing the new defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest.

The Court held that the traditional strict liability regime for defamatory statements of fact failed to adequately protect freedom of expression under the Charter.

The new defence applies where the publication is on a matter of public interest and the publisher was diligent in trying to verify the allegations.

A new trial was ordered due to the trial judge's failure to leave this defence to the jury and errors in the fair comment instruction.

The respondents sought substantial indemnity costs of $18,939.18 from the media coalition regarding its motion to intervene on the appeal.

The media coalition had been granted leave to intervene on conditions, including paying costs incurred due to late intervention, but subsequently elected not to participate in the appeal to avoid costs exposure.

The Court of Appeal held that because the intervener did not participate, there was no relevant costs order on the appeal to trigger the payment of full motion costs.

However, the court awarded the respondents $3,500 for costs fairly attributable to the late intervention.

The defendants appealed a jury verdict awarding the plaintiffs $1.475 million in damages for a defamatory newspaper article about the plaintiff's proposed golf course expansion.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge erred in his treatment of the emerging defence of public interest responsible journalism by conflating it with qualified privilege and failing to have the jury determine the article's meaning first.

The trial judge also made reversible errors in his jury charge regarding the defence of fair comment, malice, and the presumption of falsity.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Adjudicator's decision upholding the Ministry of Natural Resources' disclosure of certain records to a requester.

The applicant argued the records were exempt from disclosure under s. 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as they contained confidential commercial information.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Adjudicator's conclusion that the information was negotiated rather than 'supplied' in confidence was reasonable.

The appellants sought a new hearing before a differently constituted Human Rights Tribunal, arguing a lack of procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court found conflicting evidence regarding attempts at service, a suspicion of evasion, and a failure to use available translation services.

Concluding that procedural fairness was not achieved on the record, the court ordered a new hearing before a differently constituted Tribunal and made no order as to costs.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order dismissing part of his defamation action arising from material posted on the respondent's website.

The motions judge had ruled the internet publication was a 'broadcast' under the Libel and Slander Act, rendering the claim statute-barred for failure to provide timely notice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the internet publication constituted a broadcast from a station in Ontario, particularly given conflicting expert evidence on the nature of internet dissemination.

The respondents sued the appellants for fraud, misappropriation of funds, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty, alleging the appellants stole $1.6 million from the respondents' company.

The appellants pleaded the defence of ex turpi causa, alleging the respondents skimmed cash from a related company to defraud revenue authorities.

The motions judge struck out these paragraphs of the statement of defence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Hall v. Herbert does not allow the defence where the plaintiff's alleged illegal activity is separate and unrelated to the claim against the defendant.