Ryder Leigh Gilliland

The plaintiff, a municipal councillor, brought two defamation actions against several defendants regarding statements made on social media and at a town council meeting.

The defendants moved to dismiss the actions under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act (s. 137.1).

The court found that the expressions related to a matter of public interest.

The plaintiff failed to satisfy the merits-based hurdle, as the defendants had valid defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed the public interest hurdle, as she could not demonstrate that the harm she suffered outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expressions.

Both actions were dismissed.

The moving parties, NDrive, Navigation Systems S.A. and its directors, sought security for costs under Rule 61.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure against the appellants (Zhou parties) in an ongoing appeal.

The motion judge had previously found the appellants liable for civil fraud, awarded substantial damages and full indemnity costs, and noted their shocking and reprehensible litigation conduct.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion for security for costs, totaling $300,000, finding that the prior findings of fraud and litigation misconduct, coupled with the appellants' insufficient assets in Ontario, constituted "other good reason" under Rule 61.06(1)(c).

The appellant, R.W. (Brad) Blair, appealed the dismissal of his defamation action against Premier Doug Ford, which was dismissed under an anti-SLAPP motion (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act).

Ford cross-appealed the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Blair's appeal, upholding the dismissal of the defamation action, and allowed Ford's cross-appeal in part regarding the timing of costs payment, making the full award immediately payable.

The court also quashed appeals from preliminary interlocutory orders due to lack of jurisdiction.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment, the moving parties sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that the responding parties engaged in egregious litigation conduct, including providing false evidence, hiding evidence, and commencing a spurious counterclaim that amounted to an abuse of process.

The court held that an award of punitive damages does not preclude an award of full indemnity costs where the conduct warrants it.

Costs were fixed at $230,000 on a full indemnity scale.

The media applicants sought judicial review of a Hearing Officer's decision in a police disciplinary hearing to impose a publication ban on a video exhibit and subsequently allow the exhibit to be withdrawn from the record.

The Divisional Court found that the Hearing Officer erred in principle by failing to apply the proper Dagenais-Mentuck test before granting the ban and by allowing the exhibit to be withdrawn when the media sought to challenge it.

The Court set aside the publication ban and the withdrawal order, directing that the video be made public with the victim's name redacted.

The Court also ordered the police service to provide contemporaneous access to exhibits during future hearings in accordance with the open court principle.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Healey J. dated May 21, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of McCarthy J. dated November 12, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's anti-SLAPP motion in a defamation action, the plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $61,000.

The court considered section 137.1(8) of the Courts of Justice Act, which presumes no costs are awarded to a responding party unless appropriate in the circumstances.

The court found that the defendant's expression related to a matter of public interest and the motion was not frivolous or brought for a strategic purpose.

Consequently, the plaintiff failed to rebut the statutory presumption, and no costs were ordered.

The Crown applied for a temporary publication ban on portions of an agreed statement of fact and bail synopsis relating to an adult accused who pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

The ban was sought to protect the fair trial rights of a young person co-accused who was scheduled to be tried for second-degree murder at a later date.

The court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test and concluded that a broad ban was not necessary, as alternative measures like jury instructions and the passage of time would mitigate prejudice.

However, a limited ban was granted for evidence that could identify the young person or would be presumptively inadmissible at their trial.

The defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation claim.

The plaintiff, a real estate agent, sued the defendant over articles and comments posted on WeChat regarding the defendant's dissatisfaction with the plaintiff's services during a 2014 home purchase.

The court found that while the expression related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff established that her claim had substantial merit and that there were grounds to believe the defendant had no valid defence.

Furthermore, the court held that the harm suffered by the plaintiff outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendant's expression.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought a motion for a sealing order and publication ban regarding her family law file following the highly public suicide of the respondent father, who died in a car explosion outside the courthouse.

Several media outlets intervened to oppose a broad ban.

The court applied the Dagenais-Mentuck-Sierra Club test, balancing the open court principle against the risk of harm to the children.

The court denied a complete sealing order but granted a tailored publication ban protecting the identities and personal information of the children, the mother, and extended family, and ordered the file to be initialized.

The Plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs against the Defendants Zhou and Aguazion Inc. following two successful motions: a Mareva injunction and a variation of that order due to Zhou's fraud and misrepresentation.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs for the first motion, payable in the cause, and substantial indemnity costs for the second motion, fixed at $52,415.07, payable forthwith or from the Alternative Payment of Security Option (APSO) fund.

The judge found Zhou's conduct, including perjury and misleading evidence, warranted serious costs consequences, justifying substantial indemnity for the second motion.

The appeal concerns the openness of a police services board hearing regarding an extension of time for service of a disciplinary notice.

Following an investigation by the Ontario Independent Police Review Director into allegations of police misconduct in the investigation of the death of an Indigenous man, a retired judge appointed as a substitute decision-maker ordered that the extension hearing be held in camera.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and First Nation complainants sought judicial review, arguing that the hearing should be open pursuant to section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Divisional Court upheld the in camera order, finding that the Dagenais/Mentuck test did not apply to administrative proceedings and that the statutory test under the Police Services Act was sufficient.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the Dagenais/Mentuck test does not apply to administrative proceedings, the Charter right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press recognized in Langenfeld applies to police services board meetings, and the presumption of openness under the Police Services Act must be considered in light of this Charter protection.

The appellant appealed from an order of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing two related proceedings and striking out his statement of defence in a third proceeding arising from an aborted real estate transaction in 2004.

The appellant had accumulated multiple costs orders and failed to meet a 60-day deadline to pay outstanding costs.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the condition that the appellant pay all outstanding costs within 30 days, finding that dismissal without notice to the appellant regarding one of the actions was improper and that a trial on the merits was preferable.

The appellants appealed the motion judge's decision refusing to dismiss a defamation action under the Anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondents, a cigarette manufacturer and its CEO, sued over a magazine article published by the appellants that connected them to organized crime, terrorism, and tobacco smuggling.

The motion judge found the action had substantial merit, that no valid defences existed, and that the harm to the respondents outweighed the public interest in protecting the appellants' expression.

The appellants argued the motion judge erred in balancing public interests, in assessing harm without evidence of financial loss, and in rejecting the justification defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's decision.

The applicant media organization sought judicial review of a decision to hold an in camera hearing for an extension of time application under s. 83(17) of the Police Services Act regarding police misconduct allegations.

The applicant argued the decision-maker erred by failing to apply the Dagenais/Mentuck test for open court proceedings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the Dagenais/Mentuck test does not apply to administrative or procedural functions under the Police Services Act, which contains its own statutory framework for determining when hearings may be closed to the public.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) sought to unseal the remaining redacted portions (approximately 25%) of an Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant related to an RCMP investigation into alleged investor fraud by Fortress Real Capital Inc. and associated entities.

The Crown resisted, arguing that further disclosure would compromise the ongoing investigation and prejudice innocent third parties.

The court, applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test, found that the Crown had justified the redactions, citing a serious and specific risk to the integrity of the investigation due to undisclosed law enforcement techniques and the potential for specific financial harm to an innocent person.

The court also noted the ongoing nature of the investigation and the large volume of unanalyzed seized material as factors supporting continued redaction of other third parties' identities.

The application for further unsealing was dismissed.

The applicants sought a Norwich Order requiring the respondent website to disclose the personal information of anonymous users who posted allegedly defamatory reviews about the applicants' business.

The respondent did not appear.

The court applied the five-part test for a Norwich Order, finding that the applicants had a bona fide claim for defamation, the respondent was involved in the acts by facilitating the anonymous posts, and the respondent was the only practicable source of the information.

The court granted the order, noting that the interests of justice do not favour permitting anonymous posters to engage in a campaign of defamation with impunity.

The defendant, acting as the Integrity Commissioner for the Township of Scugog, brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss an action commenced by the plaintiff, a municipal councillor.

The action related to reports prepared by the defendant investigating a complaint against the plaintiff.

The court found that the reports were expressions relating to a matter of public interest.

Because the plaintiff failed to file materials or establish that the claim had substantial merit, that there were no valid defences, or that the public interest in continuing the proceeding outweighed the public interest in the expression, the court dismissed the action and awarded costs on a full indemnity basis.

The defendants previously brought an unsuccessful anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' $27 million defamation action regarding a publication about contraband tobacco.

The plaintiffs, as the successful responding parties, sought costs for the motion.

The court considered the presumption under section 137.1(8) of the Courts of Justice Act, which states that a successful responding party is not entitled to costs unless appropriate in the circumstances.

Finding that the motion was not frivolous, involved matters of public interest, and lacked inappropriate behaviour by the defendants, the court held that the plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption.

No costs were awarded.