Shelina Ali

This was a costs endorsement following dismissal of a defendants' security for costs motion in a defamation action under s. 12 of the Libel and Slander Act.

The court held the successful plaintiff was entitled to costs, rejected substantial indemnity, and fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis after applying the Rule 57.01(1) factors, including the motion's significant complexity, the amount at stake, and the volume of the record.

Although the plaintiff had mortgaged her property to her lawyers, the court held that circumstance did not disentitle her to costs, but it justified deferring payment until after trial.

Costs were ordered in the amount of $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable to the plaintiff in any event of the cause.

The defendants in a libel action brought a motion for security for costs under section 12 of the Libel and Slander Act after the trial judge passed away before rendering a decision.

The court held that the test under section 12 is conjunctive, requiring the defendants to prove that the plaintiff lacks sufficient assets, that the defendants have a good defence on the merits, and that the statements were made in good faith.

Although the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets, the defendants failed to establish that their defences of justification, fair comment, or responsible journalism were more likely than not to succeed, or that the statements were made in good faith.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed.

In a defamation trial concerning an allegedly defamatory newspaper article also posted online, the plaintiff sought to introduce evidence of republication on third‑party websites based on Internet search results.

The court considered the rule that each republication of a libel is a separate publication and that the original publisher is not liable for subsequent republications unless an exception is pleaded, such as where repetition is the natural and probable consequence of the original publication.

The court reviewed authorities confirming that pleadings in defamation actions must specifically allege such exceptions.

Because the statement of claim did not plead the republication exception and no amendment had been sought despite notice from the defendants, the court held the plaintiff could not introduce evidence of republication by other Internet sites.

The evidentiary request was therefore refused.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on creed more than 16 months after the last alleged incident.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith because he was waiting for his union grievance to conclude and had been advised by the Human Rights Legal Support Centre to pursue the grievance first.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's explanations, finding no evidence that he was advised to delay his application or that he was misled by his union.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

A former employee and founding member of a coffee company and its related worker co‑operative sought damages for failure to redeem “sweat equity” credits earned through reduced cash wages.

The plaintiff alleged entitlement to redemption of Class B shares and pursued an oppression remedy under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, as well as relief under the Co‑operative Corporations Act.

The court held that the plaintiff’s sweat equity constituted an option or warrant to acquire shares rather than an existing shareholding, and that he had standing as a complainant but no entitlement to redemption.

The court found no oppressive conduct because the internal pay scale and resulting reduction of sweat equity value were adopted through a fair process in which the plaintiff participated.

The action was dismissed and the corporations were not required to redeem the sweat equity credits.

The respondent brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order of a motion judge.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to meet the threshold test set out in Rule 62.02(4)(a) or (b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court also noted that reasons for refusing leave to appeal an interlocutory order generally need not be given.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking production of the respondents' employee and volunteer lists to identify a proposed witness.

The Tribunal found that the confusion over the witness's name had been resolved and the applicant had already filed his witness list without the unidentified individual.

The request for production was therefore denied as unnecessary.

The applicant's request to add a party was also denied due to a lack of details.