Richard G. Dearden

Mr. Langstaff, a defendant and plaintiff by counterclaim, moved to amend his counterclaim to add three senior managers of the corporate plaintiffs (Senior Management) as parties, increase exemplary damages, and add claims for defamation, unlawful means, and intrusion upon seclusion.

The motion was opposed on the basis that the proposed amendments were out of time due to limitation periods.

The court denied leave to add Senior Management as parties, finding that the material facts supporting their personal liability were known to Mr. Langstaff by January 2018 or September 2019, and thus the limitation period for adding parties had expired.

However, the court granted leave to increase exemplary damages and to add the new causes of action (defamation, unlawful means, intrusion upon seclusion) against the existing defendants, as the material facts for these claims were already pleaded within the limitation period.

The defendants by counterclaim (West Face Capital Inc., Gregory Boland, and Bruce Langstaff) moved for a Mareva injunction to prevent the plaintiffs by counterclaim (The Catalyst Capital Group Inc., Callidus Capital Corporation, and Newton Glassman) from removing assets from Ontario.

The moving parties alleged that Mr. Glassman was relocating to the Bahamas and dissipating assets to avoid potential judgments arising from a massive corporate espionage and defamation campaign.

The court found that while the moving parties established a strong prima facie case of deceitful and tortious conduct by Mr. Glassman, they failed to prove a real risk that assets were being removed with the specific intent to defeat creditors.

The court also found the moving parties delayed in bringing the motion and failed to establish irreparable harm.

The motions for a Mareva injunction were dismissed.

This endorsement addresses the costs of appeals and a cross-appeal that were previously dismissed.

The appellants proposed an aggregate payment of $300,000 as partial indemnity costs.

The respondents sought higher amounts, with one group seeking full indemnity.

The court found the amounts sought by the respondents to be reasonable and proportionate, noting cooperation among counsel and no duplication of effort.

The court awarded specific partial indemnity costs to each respondent group, totaling $549,082.93.

The Superior Court of Justice rendered a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action under anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court addressed the appropriate scale and quantum of costs, considering the statutory presumption of full indemnity costs for successful anti-SLAPP motions and recent conflicting Court of Appeal guidance on costs guidelines.

The court awarded the Canadian Nurses Association Defendants $250,000.00 on a full indemnity basis and the Together News Inc. Defendants $65,000.00 on a substantial indemnity basis, finding these amounts fair and reasonable given the case's complexity and the parties' expectations prior to new appellate guidance.

This is a complex set of appeals concerning anti-SLAPP motions.

The appellants (Catalyst parties) appealed the dismissal of two of their actions (Defamation and Wolfpack actions) and the dismissal of their partial anti-SLAPP motion against a counterclaim.

The court dismissed all appeals, upholding the motion judge's findings that the Catalyst parties' actions were strategic attempts to silence critics, lacked substantial merit against some respondents, and that the public interest in protecting expression outweighed the public interest in continuing the proceedings.

The court also upheld the costs awards against the Catalyst parties, emphasizing the deterrent purpose of anti-SLAPP legislation against abusive litigation.

The Auditor General of Ontario appealed a lower court decision regarding the interpretation of section 10 of the Auditor General Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.

A.35.

The core issue was whether the Act confers authority on the Auditor General to access and compel disclosure of privileged information (solicitor-client, litigation, and settlement privilege) from a grant recipient, Laurentian University of Sudbury, during a value-for-money audit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that statutory language must demonstrate a clear, explicit, and unambiguous intent to abrogate privilege, and the Auditor General Act's provisions did not meet this high standard.

The plaintiffs, a group of nurses and their organization who organized protests against COVID-19 mandates outside hospitals, sued the defendants for defamation over statements and articles criticizing their actions.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that while the plaintiffs' claim had substantial merit, they failed to show that the harm they suffered outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expressions on matters of public health.

The action was dismissed.

The Auditor General of Ontario sought declarations that it had the authority under the Auditor General Act to compel grant recipients, specifically Laurentian University, to provide information and records subject to solicitor-client, litigation, or settlement privilege for audit purposes.

Laurentian University argued that the Act did not contain the clear and unambiguous language required to abrogate such fundamental privileges.

The court dismissed the Auditor General's application, holding that sections 10 and 27.1 of the Auditor General Act did not explicitly or unambiguously confer the power to compel disclosure of privileged information, and that privilege cannot be abrogated by inference.

The Catalyst Parties brought actions for defamation, injurious falsehood, and conspiracy against various defendants, including media organizations, journalists, short sellers, and former borrowers, arising from the publication of a Wall Street Journal article and whistleblower complaints to the Ontario Securities Commission.

The defendants brought motions to dismiss the actions under the anti-SLAPP provisions of s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Catalyst Parties also brought a motion to dismiss four discrete defamation claims in a counterclaim brought by the West Face Parties.

The court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing the Defamation Action and the Wolfpack Action, finding that the expressions related to matters of public interest and that the public interest in protecting the expressions outweighed the public interest in allowing the actions to proceed, particularly given the Catalyst Parties' history of aggressive litigation and ethically dubious investigative tactics.

The court dismissed the Catalyst Parties' motion regarding the counterclaim, holding that partial anti-SLAPP motions are not permitted and that the counterclaim had substantial merit.

The Catalyst Parties brought actions for defamation, injurious falsehood, and conspiracy against various defendants, including media organizations, journalists, short sellers, and former borrowers, arising from the publication of a Wall Street Journal article and whistleblower complaints to the Ontario Securities Commission.

The defendants brought motions to dismiss the actions under the anti-SLAPP provisions of s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Catalyst Parties also brought a motion to dismiss four discrete defamation claims in a counterclaim brought by the West Face Parties.

The court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing the Defamation Action and the Wolfpack Action, finding that the expressions related to matters of public interest and that the public interest in protecting the expressions outweighed the public interest in allowing the actions to proceed, particularly given the Catalyst Parties' history of aggressive litigation and ethically dubious investigative tactics.

The court dismissed the Catalyst Parties' motion regarding the counterclaim, holding that partial anti-SLAPP motions are not permitted and that the counterclaim had substantial merit.

The court issued trial management directions and an endorsement, adjourning a bifurcated liability trial scheduled to commence on May 21, 2019.

The adjournment was necessitated by the parties' lack of trial readiness, specifically concerning the plaintiff's uncertainty regarding witness identities (over 20 potential witnesses, some unnamed) and the failure to finalize an agreed statement of facts.

Additionally, the plaintiff's last-minute motion to add another foreign defendant, Eli Lilly S.A., introduced unresolved jurisdictional issues that would further complicate and extend the trial.

The court emphasized the importance of efficient trial management and the fair allocation of judicial resources, concluding that proceeding with the trial under these circumstances would risk exceeding the allotted time and prejudice other litigants.

The defendants moved to amend a Protective and Confidentiality Order to add a second law firm, Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, as "outside counsel" alongside their existing counsel.

The plaintiff opposed, citing a potential conflict of interest as Norton Rose Fulbright also represents another drug manufacturer with similar claims against the plaintiff in a separate action.

The court found that the defendants failed to provide a sufficient explanation for seeking to add Norton Rose Fulbright as co-counsel under paragraph 10(b) of the order, rather than simply seeking leave under paragraph 10(g) to allow them to view confidential information.

The court identified a foreseeable risk of conflict of interest due to Norton Rose Fulbright's dual representation and the lack of evidence regarding screening mechanisms or waivers.

The motion was dismissed.

The court addressed submissions regarding the anonymization of its decision and the inclusion of a warning, in light of existing publication bans from underlying criminal and family court proceedings.

The Crown sought to protect victim identities through initialization and a substantial warning.

Post Media agreed to initials, while CBC opposed anonymization, citing the open court principle and lack of evidence for harm.

The court ultimately decided to initialize the principal parties in its decision and attach a modified warning to comply with publication bans while upholding the open court principle.

The Crown brought an application seeking a finding of civil contempt against the CBC and Post Media for allegedly breaching publication bans issued in a criminal proceeding.

The media outlets had published articles about related family court proceedings which the Crown argued, when read with prior reporting, could identify the victims (the 'mosaic effect').

The Superior Court found it had inherent jurisdiction to hear the application and that proceeding by application was appropriate.

However, the court dismissed the contempt application, finding that the publication ban was not sufficiently clear due to a confusing warning issued in the family court proceedings.

The court also declined to grant declaratory relief, finding it would have no practical utility.

The defendants, including Justin Trudeau and Benjamin Netanyahu, brought a motion under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss an action initiated by the plaintiff, "Bride ov Christ" (represented by Lizi Peter), as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff's claim, naming 817 defendants, alleged "conspiracy of silence, intentional infliction of mental suffering and ostracism" preventing recovery from trauma-related identity disorder and a gastro-intestinal condition, seeking over $160 million in damages.

The court found the pleading to be a clear example of querulous litigant behavior, noting the absence of recognized torts for "conspiracy of silence" or "ostraciism" and a lack of material facts to support the claim of intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The action was dismissed against all defendants.

The Crown brought a motion to compel undertakings from "paper trail" affiants of the respondent media corporations during cross-examinations related to an upcoming civil contempt application.

The respondents argued that cross-examinations are narrower than discoveries, affiants are fact witnesses, and the requested inquiries were irrelevant or potentially incriminating.

The court found the questions regarding the authors' knowledge of publication bans and the CBC's system for tracking such bans to be relevant.

It ordered the affiants to make the requested inquiries, noting that the information appeared readily available and not unduly onerous to obtain.

The defendant, an executive of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss a defamation action against him personally.

He argued he was protected by statutory immunity under s. 18(1) of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and that he acted as an employee without personal liability.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issue of whether the defendant acted in good faith or with malice could not be determined on a summary judgment motion and required a full trial.

The defendant, a Trustee in Bankruptcy, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss an action brought by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs claimed the Trustee breached a confidentiality agreement by publicly disseminating an arbitration decision that found against them on several bankruptcy-related claims.

The Trustee argued the confidentiality agreement did not extend to the decision itself and that it had an obligation to inform other creditors.

The court found that genuine issues requiring a trial existed, particularly regarding the interpretation of the confidentiality clause in the Mini-Trial Agreement, the scope of the Trustee's obligations, and the assessment of damages.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

In a defamation action arising from statements published online about a law professor’s review of a university report on systemic racism, the court was required to determine on a voir dire whether certain impugned statements were capable of bearing defamatory meanings.

Applying established defamation principles, including the test from WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, the court assessed whether the words could reasonably lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person.

The court concluded that eight impugned statements were capable of conveying meanings that impugned the plaintiff’s integrity, independence, and professionalism in conducting and authoring the report.

However, the court rejected additional alleged meanings suggesting betrayal of Black people or support for racism, finding those meanings did not naturally arise from the words.

Only the identified defamatory meanings would proceed to the jury.

Following dismissal of a champerty motion brought by the defendant seeking to stay a libel action as an abuse of process, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The defendant had argued that the plaintiff should not receive costs because her legal fees were funded by her employer, and that the affected party university had no entitlement to costs.

The court rejected these arguments, holding that third‑party funding does not preclude an award of costs and that the university, as an affected party under Rule 37.07(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, was entitled to participate and recover costs.

Applying the Rule 57 factors, including complexity, extensive evidentiary record, and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party, the court fixed partial indemnity costs in favour of both the plaintiff and the university.