4 total
The court dismissed an internet defamation action against an Indian media company for lack of jurisdiction.
The defendant ANI Media Private Ltd. moved to dismiss or permanently stay the action brought by Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) on grounds of lack of jurisdiction or *forum non conveniens*.
SFJ, an Ontario-incorporated not-for-profit, alleged a defamation campaign orchestrated by the Republic of India and carried out by Indian media outlets, including ANI Media.
The court found that while a presumptive connecting factor (tort committed in Ontario due to online access) was arguable, it was rebutted because the claims were not sufficiently connected to Ontario to reasonably expect ANI Media to respond there, especially given the Republic of India's immunity and the broad nature of the alleged campaign.
Consequently, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice declined jurisdiction and dismissed the action.
The court also briefly addressed *forum non conveniens* for completeness, noting that India was not clearly a more appropriate forum due to significant impediments for SFJ to litigate there.
Costs awarded to administrative decision-maker that successfully defended its decision in an adversarial role.
The respondent Registrar successfully resisted an application for judicial review regarding the cannabis retail lottery and sought costs.
The applicants argued that costs should not be awarded to a decision-maker that successfully resists judicial review, relying on an alleged overriding principle.
The Divisional Court rejected this argument, noting that in Ontario, costs are awarded to administrative tribunals acting in an adversarial role to defend their decisions.
The court awarded the Registrar costs of the stay motion and the application, fixing the quantum at $40,000.
Judicial review of cannabis lottery disqualifications dismissed; Registrar's enforcement of letter of credit deadline was reasonable.
The applicants sought judicial review of the Registrar's decision to disqualify them from the cannabis retail store lottery process for failing to provide original copies of a standby letter of credit by the specified deadline.
The applicants argued the disqualification was unreasonable, the lottery rules were ultra vires, and they were denied procedural fairness.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Registrar's decision was reasonable given the applicants' failure to provide functional contact information and their failure to meet the clear deadline.
The Court also held the rules requiring a letter of credit and permitting its drawdown were intra vires, and there was no denial of procedural fairness.
The Court of Appeal dismissed a motion to stay the Divisional Court's order regarding the disqualification of cannabis retail lottery applicants.
The moving parties sought a stay of a Divisional Court order that lifted an earlier stay and dismissed their application for judicial review.
The moving parties had been selected in a lottery to apply for retail cannabis store licences but were disqualified by the Registrar for failing to provide an irrevocable letter of credit within five days of notification.
The Court of Appeal applied the three-part test for granting a stay: serious issue to be determined, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience.
While the court found a serious issue existed and acknowledged potential irreparable harm, it determined that the balance of convenience strongly favoured denying the stay due to interference with government policy, public interest in expanding cannabis retail access, and the fact that the moving parties' position had already been rejected by the Divisional Court.
