Peter Doyun Kim

The appellant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension imposed under the Highway Traffic Act after he failed to provide a breath sample following a motor vehicle collision.

The appellant argued he was unable to comply with the demand due to confusion and disorientation from a concussion sustained in the collision.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the appellant suffered a mild traumatic brain injury, the medical evidence did not establish a causal link between his condition and his inability to provide a breath sample at the roadside.

The suspension was confirmed.

The defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action.

The plaintiff sued the defendant over several videos posted online that allegedly implicated the plaintiff in a conspiracy to assassinate the spiritual leader of the Gonabadi Sufis in Iran.

The court found that while the defendant's expression related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff's defamation claim had substantial merit and the defendant's defences of justification and qualified privilege lacked a real prospect of success.

The court concluded that the public interest in permitting the action to continue outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression, as truth and justice favoured a trial on the merits.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant, Kay Hon, appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent developer, Forest Hill Homes (Cornell Rouge) Limited, for failure to close on a home purchase.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in finding no misrepresentation by the developer's agent regarding agency, and that summary judgment should not have been granted while a third-party claim remained outstanding.

The Court of Appeal found no clear and palpable error in the factual finding regarding agency, noting the appellant's own evidence and the agreement confirmed the agent acted for the vendor.

The court also held that the main action and counterclaim were sufficiently distinct from the third-party claim to allow for summary judgment, and clarified that the motion judge's observations on the third-party claim were not binding findings.

The appeal was dismissed.