Peter T.J. Danson

The moving party sought to set aside service of a statement of claim served outside Ontario or, alternatively, a stay of the action.

The claim arose from a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Pennsylvania involving a Pennsylvania resident defendant and an Ontario resident plaintiff.

The court considered the requirements for service ex juris under Rule 17.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the real and substantial connection test as articulated in Van Breda v. Village Resorts Ltd. The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a sufficient connection between the defendant and Ontario and provided inadequate evidence of damages or Ontario-based witnesses.

Service outside Ontario was therefore set aside.

Following an unsuccessful motion by the third party, the defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the motion was hopeless.

The court rejected the claim for substantial indemnity costs, finding the third party was entitled to pursue the motion.

Applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs fixed at $13,000 plus HST and disbursements.

The appellant appealed an order disposing of a defamation matter on the basis of qualified and common law privilege.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error by the motion judge as there was no triable issue regarding malice, making it unnecessary to determine the truth of the statements complained of.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal action against his former employer.

At trial, the parties relied on entirely different documents containing starkly different terms to support their conflicting versions of the employment contract.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's version of events and preferred the employer's documentary evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's factual findings and credibility assessments were amply supported by the evidence and attracted considerable deference, with no palpable and overriding error demonstrated.

The appellants, who are police officers, brought a defamation action against the Toronto Star regarding articles about systemic racism and racial profiling by the Toronto Police.

The motions judge struck the claim, finding it plain and obvious that the articles could not reasonably be understood to refer to the appellants as individuals.

The Court of Appeal agreed, noting that defamation is a personal tort and the articles used general language without identifying any particular officer.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant restaurant association challenged the jurisdictional and constitutional validity of a City of Toronto by-law requiring restaurant operators to publicly post the results of food premises inspections (the 'DineSafe' Disclosure Program).

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the city had the jurisdiction to pass the by-law under the Municipal Act and the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

The court also rejected the applicant's Charter challenges, holding that a corporation cannot invoke section 7, and that the mandatory posting of inspection notices did not infringe freedom of expression under section 2(b) because it did not force the owners to adopt the city's message or prevent them from disavowing it.

The court further held that even if section 2(b) were infringed, the by-law would be saved under section 1.