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.

Following their separation, the parties disputed the ownership and value of their jointly built business, Holdco.

The applicant claimed he owned 70% of the common shares, while the respondent claimed a 50% ownership based on their post-separation conduct and equal dividend payments.

The court found the respondent owned 50% of the shares, noting that the corporate records were inaccurate and the applicant had treated the respondent as an equal owner.

The court also held that the claim was not statute-barred and valued the business at $10,800,000, ordering the applicant to pay the respondent $5,400,000 for her shares.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeal regarding trustee compensation on a passing of accounts, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent (former trustee) sought full indemnity costs of $134,394.86, while the appellants argued for partial indemnity costs payable by the trust and sought their own costs from the trust.

The Divisional Court held that the respondent was entitled to full indemnity costs because he incurred them in his capacity as trustee.

The court fixed the respondent's costs at $90,000 all-inclusive, ordering a blended costs award where the appellants pay 60 percent and the trust pays 40 percent.

The appellants were ordered to bear their own costs.

The appellants, beneficiaries of a family trust, appealed a trial judge's decision on the passing of accounts of the respondent trustee.

They argued the trial judge provided inadequate reasons, erred in failing to find a conflict of interest when the trustee hired lawyers from his own firm, and awarded unreasonable compensation.

They also sought leave to appeal the full indemnity costs awarded to the trustee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and denied leave to appeal costs, finding the trial judge's reasons were adequate in context, there was no palpable and overriding error in finding no conflict of interest, the compensation reduction was reasonable, and the costs award properly reflected the public policy of indemnifying trustees for reasonable administration expenses.

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.