Sabrina Joanne Callaway

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal a certification order.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the question of whether the tort of intrusion upon seclusion is available against collectors and custodians of private information when that information is improperly accessed by a third party, even if the defendants allegedly acted recklessly.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $11,300, left to the discretion of the appeal panel.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against Equifax arising from a massive data breach where hackers accessed the personal information of Canadian consumers.

Equifax opposed certification of several claims, arguing that it was plain and obvious they would fail because Equifax was a victim of the hack, not the perpetrator.

The court rejected Equifax's objections, finding that the law on intrusion upon seclusion, breach of provincial privacy statutes, breach of contract, and consumer protection was not settled in the context of a database defendant allegedly recklessly enabling a hacker attack.

The court certified the proceeding as a class action.

Two consolidated appeals from motions to dismiss libel actions brought under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (anti-SLAPP provision).

The appellant, a waste management company, sued two individuals for statements made on Facebook regarding concerns about environmental contamination from the company's expanded dumping operations at a gravel pit.

The motion judges dismissed both actions, finding the statements related to matters of public interest and that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the harm suffered was sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting the respondents' freedom of expression.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissals, affirmed damages awards to the respondents, and dismissed the appellant's leave to appeal the costs awards.

The applicant sought an accounting of funds raised for a community fund by the respondent mayor.

After the application was commenced, the respondent voluntarily provided the requested financial information and offered to settle on a without-costs basis.

The applicant agreed the matter was moot, but the respondent subsequently reversed course and sought a hearing on the merits to clear his name.

The court dismissed the application as moot, declining to exercise its discretion to hear it.

The court awarded costs to the applicant for the period after the respondent reversed his settlement position.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a national class action for settlement purposes and to approve a settlement with the defendant software developer.

The action concerned a security defect in preloaded software on laptop computers that allegedly intercepted web traffic.

The court found that the criteria for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met.

The court also approved the settlement of $151,547 CAD and cooperation terms, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

Following the successful dismissal of the plaintiff's action as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), the defendant sought full indemnity costs of $122,286.94 pursuant to section 137.1(7) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiff argued the time claimed was excessive and proposed a reduced amount.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument, noting that the defendant's use of junior counsel resulted in a total fee comparable to the plaintiff's own costs, which relied heavily on senior counsel.

The court awarded the defendant the full amount claimed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a national class action against Lenovo (Canada) Inc. and Superfish Inc. regarding the pre-installation of Visual Discovery software on certain laptop computers.

The plaintiff alleged the software contained a security defect and unlawfully transmitted private information.

The court found that the claims for breach of the implied condition of merchantability, intrusion upon seclusion, and breach of provincial privacy laws satisfied the cause of action criterion.

The court modified the proposed class definition to exclude indirect purchasers and certain computer models, and refined the common issues.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

In a proposed class action, the plaintiff moved under Rule 49 to enforce an alleged settlement with one of the defendants, Superfish Inc., prior to certification.

Counsel for Superfish requested an adjournment to obtain instructions.

The court granted the adjournment, noting that a Rule 49 motion to enforce a settlement in a proposed class action cannot proceed pre-certification.

The motion was adjourned to allow the plaintiff to properly constitute the motion by bringing it alongside a motion for certification.

Katie Mohammed, a resident of Whitchurch-Stouffville, posted comments on social media expressing concern that an amendment to an agreement between the municipality and United Soils Management Ltd., allowing for the deposition of "acceptable fill" in a gravel pit near a water tower, could lead to groundwater contamination and harm children.

United Soils Management Ltd. sued her for defamation.

Mohammed brought a motion to dismiss the action under anti-SLAPP legislation (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act).

The court found that the plaintiff's action lacked substantial merit, that Mohammed had valid defenses (justification, fair comment, qualified privilege, responsible communication), and that the harm suffered by the plaintiff did not outweigh the public interest in protecting freedom of expression.

The court also found that the plaintiff brought the proceeding in bad faith and for an improper purpose, awarding Mohammed $7,500 in damages.

The plaintiff, United Soils Management Ltd., brought a motion for leave to examine the Mayor of Whitchurch-Stouffville as a non-party witness, pursuant to Rule 39.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

This motion arose within the context of the defendant, Katie Mohammed's, anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation claim under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court considered the plaintiff's diligence in bringing the motion and the discretionary nature of granting leave, noting the legislative intent for anti-SLAPP motions to be summary.

The court found the plaintiff's pattern of interlocutory motions, including this one, to be contrary to the summary nature of anti-SLAPP proceedings and dismissed the motion for leave to examine the Mayor.

The defendant Lenovo brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike the plaintiff's class action claim in its entirety, arguing that none of the advanced causes of action could succeed.

The plaintiff had initially advanced five causes of action: breach of contract, implied condition of merchantability, intrusion upon seclusion, breach of provincial privacy laws, and negligence (the negligence claim was withdrawn).

The court granted the motion in part, striking the breach of contract claim, but dismissed the motion regarding the claims for implied condition of merchantability, intrusion upon seclusion, and breach of provincial privacy laws, finding them arguable and not plain and obvious to fail.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.

The plaintiff appealed an order of a Master who had dismissed the plaintiff's motion to strike out the defendant's statement of defence and counterclaim.

The defendant had filed the defence after bringing an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Section 137.1(5) prohibits any further steps in the proceeding once an anti-SLAPP motion is made.

The Master had read in an exception to allow the defence to be filed.

The appeal judge found the Master erred in law, as the statute contains no exceptions.

The appeal was granted, and the statement of defence and counterclaim were set aside, but the defendant was permitted to file a supplementary affidavit attaching the proposed defence as an exhibit.

The plaintiff brought a defamation action against the defendant regarding a Facebook post.

The defendant brought an Anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act and subsequently delivered a statement of defence and counterclaim.

The plaintiff moved to strike the pleading, arguing it violated the stay of proceedings under s. 137.1(5), which prohibits further steps once an Anti-SLAPP motion is made.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that delivering a defence is necessary to satisfy the requirement under s. 137.1(4) to show a valid defence, and therefore does not violate the stay.