Samantha Schreiber

Al Jazeera Media Network brought a motion under section 137.1(3) of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action commenced by Rebel News Network Ltd. as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

Rebel News alleged three defamatory statements in an internet article and YouTube video published by Al Jazeera.

The court found that Al Jazeera satisfied its initial burden that the proceeding arose from an expression relating to a matter of public interest.

The burden then shifted to Rebel News to show substantial merit, no valid defence, and that the harm suffered outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression.

The court found Rebel News established substantial merit for its defamation claim.

However, Rebel News failed to show that Al Jazeera had no valid defence, specifically regarding the defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest, as the record raised credibility issues precluding a "deep dive" into the evidence at this stage.

Furthermore, Rebel News failed to provide specific evidence of harm and causation, leading the court to conclude that the public interest in free expression and public debate outweighed the public interest in permitting the action to continue.

Consequently, Al Jazeera's motion was granted, and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, Ezra Levant and Rebel News Network Ltd., commenced a defamation action against Brendan Demelle and The Narwhal News Society.

Demelle brought a motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

The court found that Demelle's expression related to a matter of public interest.

While the plaintiffs established grounds to believe their defamation claim had substantial merit and that Demelle had no valid defences (justification, fair comment, responsible communication), they failed to provide sufficient evidence of specific harm suffered as a direct result of Demelle's publication.

Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' action, as they did not clear the threshold of showing harm and causation required for the public interest in continuing the proceeding to outweigh the public interest in protecting the expression.

The defendant/third-party plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to discovery questions refused by the third parties, Sierra and Hurd.

The underlying action involved a claim for $550,000 in damages for water damage allegedly caused by defective windows.

The court ordered the third parties to produce transaction documents detailing the corporate relationship and any assumption of liability between Hurd and Sierra.

The court also ordered the production of service files and complaints related to water leakage or heat loss for the windows in question, as well as a list of Ontario dealers who sold the windows.

The moving party was awarded partial indemnity costs of $4,770.79.

The parties made written submissions regarding the costs of the appeal and a related motion for leave to adduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal ordered no costs as between the respondent and the Nealon appellants.

The respondent was awarded costs of the appeal on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $40,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST, against the Garber appellants.

The parties, equal shareholders in six corporations holding real property, were engaged in a commercial dispute involving competing oppression claims.

The motion judge appointed a Sales Officer to initiate a process for the potential sale of the properties.

The appellant appealed the order and sought a stay pending appeal, while the respondent moved to quash the appeal on the basis that the order was interlocutory and required leave.

The Divisional Court held that the order was interlocutory because any actual sale required further court approval, meaning no substantive rights were finally determined.

Consequently, the appeal was quashed for lack of leave, and the motion for a stay was dismissed as premature since no irreparable harm could occur before a sale was approved.

The applicant sought to enforce a judgment of the Jerusalem Court of Family Affairs regarding an estate settlement, which entitled her to approximately $1 million held by the Ontario court.

A law firm objected and moved for standing, asserting a right to $25,000 in unpaid legal fees from the funds, based on an irrevocable direction signed by the deceased's widow.

The court adjourned the application and motion sine die, directing the parties to attempt to resolve the fee dispute honourably before proceeding with further litigation.

This decision provides supplementary reasons regarding a motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL).

The applicants, 10381187 Canada Inc. and Elias Markos, leased a property from the respondent, Elena Cherny, for short-term rentals.

After the City of Toronto issued an Order to Comply due to illegal construction, Cherny prevented the applicants' access.

The applicants sought specific performance and damages, registering a CPL.

Cherny moved to discharge the CPL.

The court had previously ruled that specific performance was not an available remedy as damages were adequate.

In these supplementary reasons, the court declined to add a condition to the CPL discharge order to preserve the applicants' right of first refusal, reaffirming that specific performance was unavailable because the property was not unique and damages were an adequate remedy.

The respondent, Elena Cherny, leased a house to the applicants, 10381187 Canada Inc. and Elias Markos, for a 10-year term, with the understanding that it would be renovated into six units for short-term rentals.

Cherny completed the renovations without proper planning permission or building permits.

After a City of Toronto Order to Comply, Cherny restored the house to a single-family dwelling and locked out the applicants.

The applicants sought specific performance of the lease and damages, registering a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on the property.

Cherny brought a motion to discharge the CPL.

The court found that damages would be an adequate remedy for any breach of the lease, as the property was not unique in the commercial context of short-term rentals, and specific performance was not possible given the unlikelihood of obtaining the necessary zoning variances.

The CPL was discharged with conditions to protect the applicants' potential damages award, and a trial was ordered to determine the legality of the lease and whether Cherny breached it.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a settlement of a commercial lease dispute, which included an injunction and a dispute over additional rent.

The court awarded costs to Calibur Tool and Mold Inc. on a partial indemnity basis for the injunction application, finding it was a necessary step due to the respondents' improper actions in blocking access to the leased premises.

No costs were awarded to either party for the additional rent dispute, as the settlement reflected a mixed success and it was not possible to determine who fared better.

The respondents moved to dismiss an assessment proceeding for delay, which had been outstanding for approximately eleven years.

The court considered whether the delay was inordinate, inexcusable, and if it created a substantial risk of an unfair trial.

While the delay was inordinate, the court found that a fair trial was still possible given existing records.

Crucially, the court found the applicant's explanations for the delay, including prior adjournments, pending related litigation, medical issues, and difficulties with the assessment office losing files, to be reasonable and excusable.

The motion to dismiss was therefore dismissed.

At a case conference in a proposed class action, the plaintiffs sought an adjournment of the defendant's pending jurisdiction motion to summons witnesses.

The defendants objected, arguing an adjournment would prejudice them due to the impending expiry of the limitation period for third-party claims under s. 18 of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court resolved the prejudice by ordering that the defendants could deliver pro forma defences and commence third-party proceedings without attorning to the court's jurisdiction, and adjourned the jurisdiction motion.

The landlord defendants appealed an order certifying a class action against them founded on common law negligence following a series of devastating propane explosions.

The appellants argued that as landlords, they owed no duty of care to third parties in the surrounding residential neighbourhood.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the landlords had no obligation to act, given allegations that they knew of the highly dangerous propane business and the foreseeable risk of catastrophic harm to nearby residents.