Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Whitten & Lublin Professional Corporation, Plaintiff/Defendant to Counterclaim
AND:
Martin Lantaigne, Defendant/Plaintiff to Counterclaim
BEFORE: Parghi J.
COUNSEL: Nathan Shaheen, for Whitten & Lublin Professional Corporation, as Plaintiff Aaron Hershtal, for Whitten & Lublin Professional Corporation, as Defendant to Counterclaim Andrew Paterson, for LawPRO Martin Lantaigne, self-represented
HEARD: January 19, 2026, with additional written submissions provided January 28, 2026
Endorsement
1Whitten & Lublin Professional Corporation (“Whitten”), a law firm, has commenced an action for defamation against a former client, Martin Lantaigne. Mr. Lantaigne, who is self-represented, requested a case conference to seek various forms of relief from the plaintiffs. The case conference was held before me on January 19, 2026.
2Before discussing my disposition of the case conference, I provide a brief summary of the various actions commenced in Ontario and elsewhere by and against Mr. Lantaigne, together with the procedural history of this action.
Other proceedings
3Whitten previously represented Mr. Lantaigne in an employment law matter. After their relationship broke down, Whitten issued an invoice for its services to Mr. Lantaigne of $26,227.65. Mr. Lantaigne did not pay the invoice.
4In December 2023, Whitten commenced a small claims court proceeding in Ottawa, seeking payment of the invoice. Mr. Lantaigne first responded by issuing a Defendant’s Claim in British Columbia against Whitten and his former employer, its principals, and their lawyers. That claim was dismissed. Mr. Lantaigne later defended the Ottawa small claims proceeding by alleging that Whitten was negligent in its provision of professional services to him.
5Mr. Lantaigne also commenced various small claims court proceedings in Ottawa. In August 2025, these were dismissed.
6In September 2025, Mr. Lantaigne brought a fresh action against the same parties before the Superior Court of Justice in Ottawa. The defendants to the fresh action sought to schedule motions to strike and on jurisdiction. While a case conference was pending, at which the defendants’ motions were to be scheduled, Mr. Lantaigne noted the defendants in default. Kamal A.J. set aside the noting in default in December 2025 and ordered costs against Mr. Lantaigne in February 2026.
7Mr. Lantaigne has commenced other litigation in B.C. as well, some of which is ongoing.
8Mr. Lantaigne has threatened litigation against others, including Whitten’s lawyers, asserting that they have engaged in misconduct. There are at least five law firms engaged on behalf of clients in response to Mr. Lantaigne’s litigation. Multiple other firms are engaged by LawPRO.
This action
9Whitten commenced this action in March 2025, claiming Mr. Lantaigne had launched a deliberate online campaign to defame Whitten and harm its reputation. Whitten alleges that Mr. Lantaigne has, among other things, posted fake negative reviews of Whitten on Google and Facebook and intimidated Whitten’s clients into removing their authentic positive reviews of Whitten.
10After commencing the action, Whitten brought an urgent motion seeking injunctive relief against Mr. Lantaigne and others with whom he might have been coordinating; disclosure orders in respect of Google, Facebook, and LinkedIn; and costs. Whitten filed affidavit evidence in support of its motion. Mr. Lantaigne did not cross-examine on any of the affidavits.
11Whitten’s motion was heard in April 2025. At the hearing, Schabas J. discussed with Mr. Lantaigne in some detail the relief sought by Whitten. Mr. Lantaigne consented to the relief sought. Schabas J. also awarded costs against Mr. Lantaigne.
12Google and LinkedIn provided the disclosure ordered by Schabas J. Whitten states that the evidence they disclosed was consistent with Whitten’s allegations that Mr. Lantaigne had posted fake negative reviews and intimidated clients into removing their authentic positive reviews. Mr. Lantaigne says in fact the disclosure showed that the evidence suggesting that he was responsible for the fake negative reviews was fabricated.
The January 19, 2026 case conference in this action
13In his initial materials for the January 19, 2026 case conference, Mr. Lantaigne requested relief in relation to the May 5, 2025 injunction hearing before Schabas J. The relief he sought was rooted in his view that the Google and LinkedIn evidence shows he had nothing to do with the fake negative reviews posted online. He sought the following:
(a) Leave to bring a motion to dismiss the Statement of Claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, under rules 21.01(a)(b) and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure;
(b) Leave to bring a motion to set aside the order of Schabas J. “on the basis of fraud, misrepresentation, and unreliable evidence”, under rule 59.06(2)(a) and (b);
(c) Leave to cross-examine the Whitten representative who swore the lead affidavit in the May 5, 2025 motion before Schabas J.;
(d) Orders permitting the examination of a former lawyer from Whitten and a former Whitten client, both of whom provided evidence for the May 5, 2025 motion; and
(e) Various forms of evidence, such as an email from Google confirming the chain of custody; and evidence from Whitten about whether it provided certain information to Google, its explanation of certain “image discrepancies”, the date of a specific incident, whether any Facebook or Meta account holder information was received, whether a particular name was included in the account holder information sought, the identify of Whitten’s marketing agencies for the past five years, and the authenticity of the Google Review profiles Whitten has relied on.
14At the case conference, Mr. Lantaigne expressed a wish to provide further written submissions before I rendered a decision on his requests for relief. I granted his request. In doing so, I established a page limit but indicated that if Mr. Lantaigne felt he needed to exceed that page limit, he could contact my judicial assistant. On January 27, 2026, Mr. Lantaigne requested, and I granted, a longer page limit for his additional submissions.
The additional case conference submissions
15Mr. Lantaigne provided his additional submissions on January 28, 2026. In his additional submissions, he requested various orders, many of which appear to be restatements or refinements of the relief sought in his original submissions. He also sought the following:
(a) An order consolidating, or granting leave to bring a motion to consolidate, various proceedings in which he is involved – namely, the Ottawa small claims court proceeding, this proceeding, and the Ottawa Superior Court action;
(b) An order for production and the evidence relied on to obtain an urgent hearing date (on April 1, 2025) and the May 5, 2025 third party disclosure and costs order;
(c) An order to require Meta to provide information in respect of an additional account holder beyond the ones identified in the May 5, 2025 order;
(d) Leave to bring a motion at a later time under rule 59.06(2)(a) and (b) to set aside or vary the May 5, 2025 order if warranted after the evidence described above is disclosed;
(e) Leave to bring a motion at a later time for restitution for the costs awards he paid further to the May 5, 2025 order, “if the evidentiary foundation [for the May 5, 2025 order] is found to have been materially incomplete or inaccurate”;
(f) An order that the Toronto action be heard only after the above evidence is provided and the consolidation carried out;
(g) Given that various claims have been commenced in British Columbia, an order “relating to Sequencing, Case Management, and Inter-Court Coordination” which would “ensure that Ontario proceedings are sequenced and case-managed in a manner that avoids inconsistent findings, duplicative motions, and procedural prejudice while jurisdictional and forum coordination issues are addressed in the appropriate forum”. As part of this, Mr. Lantaigne requests:
(i) An order that there be an urgent case conference with all affected parties in the appropriate forum to determine “whether and how the related BC-connected claims should be consolidated or coordinated with” the Ottawa Superior Court action and the proper sequencing of pleadings and motions to follow that determination;
(ii) An order adjourning or staying the motion to strike in Ottawa pending resolution of these consolidation and sequencing issues;
(iii) An order prohibiting any party from taking steps or incurring costs to prepare motion records in any related proceeding that might be rendered moot or duplicative by consolidation;
(iv) That the endorsement of this court be provided to the Ottawa Superior Court “for case management and scheduling purposes”; and
(v) Case management of all related procedural and evidentiary issues in a single forum following consolidation; and
(h) An order requiring production of correspondence between Whitten and Meta, together with proof of service.
16Mr. Lantaigne outlined various “evidentiary concerns” that he said had arisen subsequent to the May 5, 2025 hearing. He said the disclosure provided by Google shows that he was not the author of the negative reviews. He submitted that various information to which he is entitled has not been provided to him. He elaborated on the requests for additional information he had made in both his original and additional submissions. He also outlined what he describes as shifting and prejudicial positions by Whitten on procedural issues such as consolidation and the timing of case conferences.
Subsequent correspondence
17After providing his additional submissions, Mr. Lantaigne provided additional email correspondence on several occasions.
18For example, on February 3, 2026, he emailed to provide Kamal A.J.’s cost endorsement from the motion to set aside the noting in default and to advise of his position that Kamal A.J.’s December 2025 endorsement on the main motion “relied on misapprehension of information”. He said he was requesting “a stay/pause/non-enforcement of costs pending consolidation, clarification of jurisdiction, and resolution of overlapping proceedings”.
19On February 12, 2026, he emailed to advise that Whitten and others had sought to enforce Kamal A.J.’s costs endorsement, without success. (It appears that Whitten and other defendants were seeking to settle the order from the costs endorsement after Mr. Lantaigne declined to consent to the proposed form of order.) He said he would be bringing a motion to set aside Kamal A.J.s costs order at a case conference scheduled for June 2026.
20On February 27, 2026, Mr. Lantaigne emailed to advise of a “significant development in the broader litigation landscape” that had “now considerably simplified” the requests he wished to make of the court. He summarized the developments as follows:
(a) He had previously sought consideration of consolidation in the Ottawa proceedings;
(b) The litigation in British Columbia now required certain threshold issues to be determined in B.C. before the Ottawa matters can properly proceed;
(c) He therefore intended to seek a stay of the Ottawa proceedings pending resolution of the issues in B.C., after which the remaining matters in Ottawa “can proceed in a more focused and procedurally coherent manner”;
(d) He was of the view that the defamation matter can proceed independently as it is not related to the issues that should be resolved in B.C. first.
21Mr. Lantaigne requested my guidance as to whether to file an updated case conference brief and schedule a case conference to set a timetable for the defamation proceeding and “address the outstanding issue arising from” the May 5, 2025 endorsement and order of Schabas J., “specifically regarding service on Meta Platforms.” He expressed a wish to “streamline the proceedings and ensure they advance in the most efficient sequence.”
22I advised Mr. Lantaigne that he did not need to file an updated case conference brief and that his request for instructions regarding a further case conference would be addressed in my endorsement.
Disposition
23In my view, much of the relief that Mr. Lantaigne now seeks is, in effect, an effort at relitigating the December 5, 2025 motion before Schabas J., on the basis that some of the evidence tendered by Whitten in that motion was fabricated. This is not proper. Mr. Lantaigne did not exercise his right to cross examine Whitten on any of its affidavit evidence in the motion. He consented to the order issued by Schabas J., after Schabas J. walked through it with him in some detail. He cannot now claim that the order should be set aside, or revisited, because he regrets the order and/or has come to question some of the evidence that formed the basis for the order. His request for relief is an effort to indirectly undo or reverse Schabas J.’s order. It is a collateral attack on that order. It is not proper.
24These comments apply to Mr. Lantaigne’s requests for leave to move to set aside Schabas J.’s order on the basis of fraud, misrepresentation, and unreliable evidence (discussed at paragraph 19(b) of this Endorsement); leave to cross-examine the Whitten representative who swore the lead affidavit in the May 5, 2025 motion (paragraph 19(c)); orders permitting the examination of a former lawyer from Whitten and a former Whitten client, both of whom provided evidence for the May 5, 2025 motion (paragraph 19(d)); an order for production of the evidence relied on in request of the urgent May 5, 2025 hearing date and at the hearing itself (paragraph 21(b)); leave to move to set aside the May 5, 2025 order if warranted after the evidence he seeks from Whitten is disclosed (paragraph 21(d)); and leave to move for restitution of the costs award paid further to the May 5, 2025 order (paragraph 21(e)). All these forms of relief would serve to undo the order of Schabas J., to which Mr. Lantaigne consented and which he did not appeal.
25Mr. Lantaigne also seeks orders mandating the disclosure of evidence that he can properly seek in the course of the litigation itself, through the discovery process. For instance, during documentary discovery, he may be able to ask for the production of relevant records Whitten may possess pertaining to its investigation into the alleged defamation (the relief discussed at paragraph 19(e) of this Endorsement). During examinations for discovery, he may be able to ask about the investigation Whitten has done into the alleged defamation, including, for example, the questions posed to, and information received from, Google and Facebook (paragraph 19(e)), the correspondence between Whitten and Meta (paragraph 21(h)), and service on Meta (paragraph 28). He is also at liberty to request additional information directly from Meta should he so choose (paragraph 21(c)).
26I do not suggest that any and all of Mr. Lantaigne’s requests during the discovery stage will by definition be proper and relevant. Rather, I am saying that the questions Mr. Lantaigne wishes to pose of Whitten about the facts, information, and evidence on which it relies in its claim against him are all properly raised during the discovery process, whether by way of documentary discovery, questions posed to the Whitten representative during discovery, and/or undertakings requested from Whitten at discovery. That is the appropriate and efficient avenue for obtaining this information. There is no need to bring, nor is it proper to bring, a motion seeking this evidence prior to and independently from discovery. The objective of discovery is to enable each party to “discover” the case against it. That is exactly what Mr. Lantaigne seeks to do through these requests for relief.
27Mr. Lantaigne initially sought leave to bring a motion to dismiss the Statement of Claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process (as discussed in paragraph 19(a) of this Endorsement). It is not clear whether he still seeks this relief as he did not reiterate this request in his additional submissions. In any event, Mr. Lantaigne’s reference to this type of motion may be misplaced. His submissions at the case conference appeared to suggest that his real concern is that Whitten’s allegations against him are unsupported by the evidence. If he wishes to understand and test the evidence against him, Mr. Lantaigne would be better off defending the action on the merits and moving on to the discovery stage of the litigation.
28Finally, several of the heads of relief Mr. Lantaigne seeks entail the consolidation and/or case management of the various proceedings (as discussed in paragraphs 21(a), (f), and (g) of this Endorsement). Many or all of these requests now appear to be superseded by his more recent comments, in his email of February 27, 2026, that he wishes to stay the Ottawa proceedings pending resolution of certain “threshold issues” in B.C., and that this action can proceed independently as it is not related to the threshold issues in B.C.
29Whether Mr. Lantaigne can or should stay the Ottawa proceedings is a matter properly addressed in Ottawa, whether at the June 2026 case conference that is currently scheduled, or through some other proceeding.
30Whether there are “threshold issues” in the B.C. proceedings that can or should be addressed first is, likewise, a matter to be determined in B.C. and/or Ottawa.
31Given that Mr. Lantaigne is now of the view that this action can and should proceed independently of the Ottawa and B.C. proceedings, it would appear that he is no longer advancing the requests he made earlier for consolidation and/or case management. In any event, I would not have granted any consolidation at this time given the motions to strike being contemplated by Whitten and the other defendants in the Ottawa action, which in my view should be adjudicated on the merits before any consolidation is considered. Moreover, if Mr. Lantaigne succeeds in having the Ottawa proceedings stayed pending resolution of the threshold issues in B.C., then consolidation may not be an issue at this stage.
32For the reasons above, I dismiss Mr. Lantaigne’s requests for relief. I encourage him to work constructively with opposing counsel to sort out a timetable for the remaining steps of the action, so that he may obtain the information that is important to him, and the parties may advance the litigation in an efficient and timely way.
33There will be no costs from this case conference.
Parghi J.
Date: March 11, 2026