Richard G. Dearden

Following the dismissal of the defendant's motion for leave to appeal, the plaintiff and the University of Ottawa sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that while the defendant's motion was barred by res judicata and collateral attack, his conduct was not totally unreasonable or vexatious.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

The court ordered the self-represented defendant to pay $5,500 plus HST and disbursements to the plaintiff, and $3,500 plus HST and disbursements to the University of Ottawa, noting some duplication of costs.

Following an unsuccessful motion by a non-party seeking intervener status in a civil action, the court determined costs.

The moving party argued that costs should not be awarded due to his status as an impecunious student.

The court held that alleged impecuniosity generally should not affect costs determinations and emphasized that the moving party had been warned costs would be sought if the motion proceeded.

The court also found that the moving party engaged in unreasonable conduct after the motion by sending emails attacking counsel and attempting to pressure the plaintiff to withdraw her claim for costs.

Costs were ordered payable to both opposing parties.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a case management decision refusing permission to bring a motion requesting that members of the public be allowed to attend cross-examinations on affidavits conducted in relation to a champerty motion in a defamation action.

The court considered the test for leave to appeal under rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

It held that no conflicting authority existed and there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision below.

The issue had already been decided earlier in the proceeding and permitting the motion would constitute an abuse of process and collateral attack.

The court also confirmed that cross-examinations on affidavits conducted before an examiner are not subject to the open court principle.

The respondent, the wife of a notorious convicted murderer, intended to commence divorce proceedings and successfully applied for non-publication and sealing orders to protect her privacy and mental health.

Media organizations appealed the orders.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in law.

Applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test, the Court held that the respondent failed to provide convincing evidence that the orders were necessary to prevent a serious risk to the proper administration of justice, as the psychiatric evidence relied upon was based on unsupported assumptions about media harassment.

The defendants brought a motion under Rules 21 and 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike portions of a Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim arising from a dispute between university students and a university regarding campus activities and disciplinary actions.

The plaintiffs alleged Charter breaches, negligence, and other claims relating to the university’s response to their activities and alleged involvement with police.

The court held that the Charter claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action because the pleadings failed to establish that the university was implementing a government program or acting as government under s. 32 of the Charter.

Claims against the individual defendants were also struck as the pleadings did not establish personal liability outside the scope of their employment.

However, the negligence claim against the university itself was permitted to proceed as the amended pleadings sufficiently alleged a potential duty of care and resulting harm.

The respondent, an Ontario police constable, travelled to New York City after September 11, 2001, to assist with search and rescue efforts.

The appellant newspaper published articles alleging he misrepresented himself to authorities and interfered with rescue operations.

The respondent sued for defamation.

At trial, the appellants pleaded qualified privilege but not the English defence of responsible journalism.

The jury found for the respondent.

The Court of Appeal recognized a new responsible journalism defence but denied the appellants its protection because they had not pleaded it at trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the appellants should have the opportunity to avail themselves of the newly recognized defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest.

The plaintiff, an OPP officer, sued the defendant newspaper and its reporters for defamation over articles criticizing his conduct during the 9/11 rescue efforts in New York.

At trial, the defendants relied on the traditional defence of qualified privilege, which the trial judge rejected for two of the articles.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $125,000 in damages.

On appeal, the defendants argued for the adoption of the public interest responsible journalism defence.

The Court of Appeal recognized the new defence as part of Ontario law, holding that it strikes an appropriate balance between freedom of expression and protection of reputation.

However, the court dismissed the appeal because the defendants had not pleaded or litigated the responsible journalism standard at trial.

The applicant sought judicial review of a ruling by the Commissioner of the Cornwall Public Inquiry denying a publication ban on the identity of one of its employees.

The Divisional Court determined the appropriate standard of review was reasonableness simpliciter.

The court found the Commissioner did not err in concluding the employee's identity was relevant to the inquiry's mandate, nor did he act unreasonably in applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test to deny the publication ban.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellants were awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $29,856.97 payable by the Attorney General of Canada, and costs of the motion fixed at $5,991.03 payable by the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of Ontario, following an appeal regarding a sealing order and access to search warrant information.

Following the release of its judgment regarding a sealing order on search warrant materials, the Court of Appeal was informed that the redacted names were not the subjects of the search warrants, but rather two other individuals mentioned in the materials.

The Attorney General of Canada requested a revised judgment, while the appellant media organization requested an addendum.

The Court agreed with the appellant, releasing an addendum to note the new information and varying the formal order to permit media access to the redacted names.

The appellants, a media organization and a reporter, sought access to the names of individuals whose premises were searched under warrants related to a national security investigation.

The initial judge maintained a sealing order over the names to protect the privacy of innocent persons.

The reviewing judge dismissed an application for certiorari.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found an error of law on the face of the record because the initial judge failed to consider reasonably alternative measures, specifically allowing media access to the names while imposing a publication ban.

The appeal was allowed, and an order was made granting media access to the names subject to a non-publication order.

The appellants appealed an order refusing to allow them to fundamentally recast their litigation after nine years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the amendment would inevitably prejudice the respondents, particularly given the expiry of the applicable limitation period.

The respondents' cross-appeal on costs was also dismissed.

The defendants appealed a trial judgment awarding the plaintiff, a doctor and research scientist, $950,000 in general, aggravated, and punitive damages for defamation arising from a television broadcast.

The broadcast falsely implied the plaintiff supported prescribing killer drugs, was in a conflict of interest, and acted negligently or dishonestly.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the defences of justification, qualified privilege, and fair comment failed because the broadcast was deliberately slanted and the defendants did not honestly believe their thesis.

The damage awards and the award of solicitor and client costs were affirmed due to the egregious and malicious conduct of the defendants.