Robert J. Alfieri

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation claim brought by the plaintiffs, a tattoo artist and her company.

The defamation arose from negative online reviews and social media posts by the defendants regarding alleged misadventures and disputes over tattoo services, pricing, and plagiarism.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the expressions, while attracting public attention, were fundamentally about private contractual and consumer disputes and did not relate to a matter of public interest as contemplated by the anti-SLAPP legislation.

The court also awarded costs against the defendants, noting the motions were inappropriate and tactical.

The Plaintiffs in a class action against Robert Bosch GmbH sought pre-discovery production of three million documents from Volkswagen Group (VW), a non-party.

The Plaintiffs had previously settled a separate class action against VW, where these documents were produced under a protective order and deemed undertaking.

The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' motion, finding it premature and that the Plaintiffs failed to meet the high threshold for non-party production under Rule 30.10(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court noted that Class Counsel had likely breached the deemed undertaking and protective order by seeking to use the documents in the Bosch action without prior consent or a court order.

The plaintiffs in a certified class action against Robert Bosch GmbH sought an order appointing an administrator and allowing the use of an existing email database, compiled from related class action settlements, for disseminating notice of certification to class members.

The defendant, Bosch, argued the motion was premature due to a pending mediation.

Non-parties Volkswagen and Porsche, whose customer data formed the database, raised concerns about privacy under PIPEDA.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, finding Bosch's prematurity argument unconvincing and ruling that a formal court order would ensure compliance with PIPEDA's exceptions for disclosure.