Rocco Galati

The appellants, over 400 healthcare workers, appealed an order striking their action against the provincial Crown and various healthcare organizations regarding a COVID-19 vaccination directive.

The motion judge struck the claims as an abuse of process and for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, finding the action was a broad political inquiry rather than a legally cognizable dispute.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the Charter did not apply to the private healthcare respondents, the tort claims lacked material facts, and the unionized and privileged hospital staff appellants were required to pursue their claims in other statutory forums.

The plaintiffs, comprising 473 individuals, brought an action against the Ontario government and 54 non-governmental healthcare entities, challenging COVID-19 vaccination policies and public health measures.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim.

The court granted the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction over unionized employees and physicians whose claims were subject to exclusive statutory regimes.

The court also found the action to be an abuse of process due to its prejudicial scope and frivolous pleadings.

Furthermore, the court held that the statement of claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for conspiracy, intimidation, intentional infliction of mental anguish, and Charter breaches.

The claim was struck in its entirety, with leave to amend.

The plaintiff, a lawyer representing advocacy groups in COVID-19 related litigation, brought an action for defamation, abuse of process, civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and harassment against the defendants.

The defendants moved under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action as a SLAPP.

The court found that the impugned expressions, which criticized the plaintiff's legal approach and fees, related to matters of public interest.

The plaintiff failed to show that his claims had substantial merit or that the defendants lacked valid defences such as justification, fair comment, and absolute/qualified privilege.

The court concluded that the public interest in protecting the expression outweighed any unproven harm to the plaintiff and dismissed the action in its entirety.

This is a costs endorsement following the successful dismissal of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) action against media defendants (Corus and JNN defendants) under section 137.1(3) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court determined that the successful defendants were entitled to full indemnity costs, as per the statutory presumption in section 137.1(7) of the CJA, finding no factors to displace this presumption.

The plaintiff failed to file responding costs submissions.

The court awarded the Corus defendants $92,820.00 in legal fees plus HST and disbursements, and the JNN defendants $66,402.00 in legal fees plus HST and disbursements, totaling $79,443.78.

The decision emphasizes the complexity and length of anti-SLAPP motions in justifying the quantum of costs.

This case involves two anti-SLAPP motions brought by media defendants (Global News, Corus Entertainment, and Jornal North News) to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed by a former immigration lawyer.

The lawyer alleged defamation stemming from reports about his involvement in an alleged "Pilot Project" for undocumented workers, which government officials denied existed.

The court dismissed the defamation claims, finding that the media expressions related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff failed to show substantial merit to his claim, and the defendants had valid defenses of truth/justification and responsible communication.

The court also found that any harm suffered by the plaintiff did not outweigh the public interest in protecting freedom of expression.

Dr. Kustka, a family physician, and several of her patients brought applications for judicial review challenging the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's decision to investigate her COVID-19 practices, including prescribing ivermectin and providing mask exemptions.

The patients challenged the College's ability to access their medical records, arguing it violated their Charter rights.

The Divisional Court quashed the patients' applications for lack of public and private interest standing.

The Court dismissed the physician's applications as premature, noting that challenges to the appointment of investigators should be raised before the Discipline Committee.

The Court also found the College's interim restrictions and investigation decisions were reasonable.

The Defendants brought a motion to strike a Statement of Claim filed by approximately 600 Plaintiffs challenging the federal government's COVID-19 vaccination policies.

The Court struck the Statement of Claim without leave to amend for those Plaintiffs employed within the Core Public Administration, finding their claims were barred by s. 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act as they had access to the grievance process.

For the remaining Plaintiffs, the Court struck the Statement of Claim with leave to amend, holding the pleading was prolix, lacked necessary material facts, and sought impermissible remedies.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) appealed a Superior Court decision staying its application under section 87 of the Health Professions Procedural Code to compel a physician to produce patient records.

The physician had refused to produce records related to COVID-19 vaccine exemptions and had separately sought judicial review of the CPSO's investigation.

The Divisional Court held that although the appeal might be moot following the dismissal of the judicial review, it should be heard for reasons of judicial economy.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the stay, finding the applications judge erred in principle by misapprehending the narrow scope of a section 87 application and failing to consider the urgency and public interest in the investigation.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court for determination.

The plaintiffs, two physicians, brought a $12 million defamation action against over 20 defendants, including other physicians, journalists, and media organizations.

The claims arose from two main disputes: an internal Ontario Medical Association (OMA) dispute and public criticism of the plaintiffs' controversial tweets regarding COVID-19, in which they opposed vaccines and lockdowns and promoted hydroxychloroquine.

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

The court found that the defendants' expressions related to matters of public interest and that the plaintiffs failed to show their claims had substantial merit or that the defendants lacked valid defences, such as fair comment and qualified privilege.

The court also found that the public interest in protecting the defendants' expressions far outweighed any harm suffered by the plaintiffs.

The action was dismissed against all defendants.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of the College of Physicians and Surgeons' decision to investigate her for professional misconduct and incompetence related to public health misinformation.

She sought declarations that the College lacked jurisdiction to regulate free speech and that its statement on misinformation was unconstitutional.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, holding that the applicant could raise her jurisdictional and constitutional arguments before the discipline tribunal if the investigation resulted in a referral for a hearing.

The court also granted a sealing order to protect the identities of patients and informants.

The appellant, Annabelle Maritza Edgeworth, appealed an order which dismissed most of the claims in her action.

Her action alleged that the respondents (lawyers, an insurer, and a medical assessor) conspired to suppress a defence medical report in a prior personal injury case, leading to claims for unlawful means conspiracy, intrusion on seclusion, conspiracy to injure, and misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that a failure to comply with a procedural rule (r. 33.06) was not a "wrongful act" for unlawful means conspiracy, and the intrusion on seclusion claim failed as the medical examination was consented to.

The court also affirmed the removal of the appellant's counsel due to a conflict of interest.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the College's Inquiries Complaints and Reports Committee to suspend his certificate of registration on an interim basis.

The suspension followed complaints that the applicant failed to wear a mask during patient examinations, in breach of an undertaking he had signed to comply with COVID-19 protocols.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Committee's process was procedurally fair and its decision to impose an interim suspension was reasonable given the risk of harm to patients and the applicant's ungovernability.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review filed by a physician regarding decisions of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).

The physician sought judicial review of seven public complaint decisions and one Registrar's investigation decision related to her social media posts about the COVID-19 pandemic.

The College argued the application regarding the public complaints was premature because the physician had also sought review before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The court granted the motion to quash the portion of the application relating to the public complaints, finding that the HPARB process provided an adequate alternative remedy and no exceptional circumstances justified bypassing the administrative process.

The Attorney General of Ontario requested in writing that the applicants' Charter challenge against various COVID-19 public health measures be dismissed as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court declined to dismiss the application at this stage, noting that Rule 2.1 is a blunt instrument reserved for the clearest of cases.

Without a full record and legal argument, the court could not conclude that the application was plainly frivolous or vexatious on its face, and directed the parties to schedule a case conference.

The applicant brought a Rule 51 motion to appeal a Prothonotary's order dismissing her request under Rule 317 for production of materials from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

The Federal Court upheld the Prothonotary's decision, finding that the underlying proceeding was a de novo hearing under s. 14 of PIPEDA rather than an application for judicial review, rendering Rule 317 inapplicable.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

This is an assessment of costs following an order granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing the plaintiffs' action.

The plaintiffs argued that the parties had settled costs at $8,000 and that their former counsel's trust account had been frozen, preventing payment.

The Assessment Officer held that he lacked jurisdiction to enforce the purported settlement or order access to the trust account, noting that an assessment officer's duty is to assess costs, not award them or consider a party's financial circumstances.

The defendants' bill of costs was assessed, with some claims disallowed because the underlying orders were silent on costs, and allowed in the total amount of $9,393.79.

The respondents brought motions to quash the appellant's appeal of an order striking parts of her statement of claim and removing her lawyers of record.

The respondents argued both orders were interlocutory and should be appealed to the Divisional Court with leave.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to quash the appeal of the order striking the claim, finding it was final because it effectively foreclosed amendments.

However, the court quashed the appeal of the order removing counsel, confirming it was interlocutory and leave to appeal must be sought in the Divisional Court.

The parties were involved in multiple actions concerning their respective security businesses.

In one action, the motion judge struck the defendant's counterclaim as an abuse of process because it duplicated a counterclaim in another action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in principle by failing to consider the context of the litigation, noting the plaintiff initiated the multiple proceedings.

A second appeal by the plaintiff from an order refusing to strike a counterclaim in another action was quashed as the order was interlocutory and the appeal properly lay to the Divisional Court.

Following a motion to strike portions of an amended counterclaim where the moving party achieved mixed but overall greater success, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The moving party sought $7,784.53 on a partial indemnity basis, while the responding party argued for no costs or costs in the cause.

The court found the moving party's claimed fees excessive given the motion's lack of complexity and short duration.

Costs were fixed at $4,235 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable by the responding party within 30 days.

This motion concerned an application to strike portions of an amended counterclaim pursuant to Rules 21 and 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The moving party sought to strike paragraphs alleging punitive damages, narrative context, and various torts, arguing no reasonable cause of action was disclosed, or that the pleading was frivolous, vexatious, or pleaded evidence.

The court granted the motion in part, striking several paragraphs for failing to concisely plead material facts or for ambiguity regarding the causes of action, with leave to amend.

Claims for punitive damages and certain allegations related to abuse of process were allowed to stand.

An extension of time to file a statement of defence was also granted.