P. Howie

The applicants, a law firm and its named partners, sought a permanent injunction requiring the respondent to remove defamatory online publications and prohibiting further defamatory material.

The respondent had published over one hundred posts on X and articles on a website targeting the applicants in reprisal for their representation of a client in a prior defamation action that resulted in a $1.75 million default judgment against the respondent.

The respondent did not dispute authorship of the posts and admitted to making the publications, though he claimed they were motivated by concern over inappropriate material reaching children.

The court found the posts were defamatory, lowering the applicants' reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person, and constituted relentless personal and professional attacks on lawyers for representing a client.

A permanent injunction was granted with costs fixed at $500.

The defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss a defamation action commenced by a drag performer and a 2SLGBTQI organization.

The action arose from a Facebook post by the defendant that referred to the plaintiffs as 'groomers' in the context of a drag story-time event.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the expression did not relate to a matter of public interest, but rather perpetuated harmful myths and stereotypes about the 2SLGBTQI community.

The court further held that the defamation claim had substantial merit, the defence of fair comment had no real prospect of success, and the public interest in allowing the plaintiffs to defend their reputations outweighed any public interest in protecting the expression.

The applicant moved for temporary child support for three children, two of whom were from her previous relationships.

The respondent opposed paying support for the two non-biological children, arguing he did not stand in the place of a parent.

The court applied the Chartier factors and found a strong prima facie case that the respondent stood in the place of a parent.

Considering the respondent's financial responsibility for seven children in total, the court deviated from a strict Guideline calculation and ordered him to pay $500 per month for the three children.