R. A. Dinnen

The plaintiff brought an action for defamation against his ex-wife and two others regarding Facebook posts and oral statements made following their marital separation.

The statements included false allegations of incest, theft, and breach of court orders.

The court found the statements were defamatory, referred to the plaintiff, and were published to third parties.

The plaintiff was awarded $15,000 in general damages against his ex-wife for libel, and $500 each against the other two defendants for slander.

Following a successful summary judgment motion for the forfeiture of a $50,000 deposit, the plaintiff, Brian Coghlan, sought $86,000 in costs.

The defendants, Unique Real Estate Holdings Inc. and Brent Lipke, opposed the quantum, proposing a range of $10,000 to $14,000.

The court, applying Section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, rejected the plaintiff's claim for substantial indemnity costs under Rule 49.10(1) as the offer to settle was not more favourable than the judgment.

The court also declined to hold the individual defendant, Brent Lipke, personally liable for costs.

Ultimately, the court awarded Brian Coghlan partial indemnity costs of $17,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST, to be paid by Unique Real Estate Holdings Inc., finding this amount to be fair and reasonable given the case's complexity and proportionality principles.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment seeking forfeiture of a $50,000 deposit paid by the defendant purchaser under an agreement of purchase and sale for an apartment building.

The purchaser argued the agreement became null and void when an insurance condition was not waived by the deadline.

The court found that the parties' conduct in continuing to work on the transaction after the deadline constituted a waiver of the condition.

The court further found that the purchaser terminated the agreement for reasons unrelated to the conditions and acted in bad faith by retroactively attempting to rely on the insurance condition.

The court granted summary judgment, ordering the $50,000 deposit forfeited to the vendor and dismissing the purchaser's counterclaim.