Sidney N. Lederman

The plaintiff, Senator Tobias Enverga Jr., brought a motion for summary judgment against Balita Newspaper, Balita Media Inc., and Tess Cusipag for defamation.

The defamatory publications, including an article and Facebook posts, accused Senator Enverga of criminal fraud, being a "biological liar" and "pathological liar" and misrepresenting the charitable status of his foundation.

The court found the words defamatory and dismissed the defendants' defences of justification and fair comment, as they failed to prove the truth of the allegations and conducted no independent investigation.

The court awarded the plaintiff $150,000 in general and aggravated damages, $100,000 in punitive damages, and issued a permanent injunction against the defendants to prevent further defamatory publications, citing their malicious conduct and refusal to retract or apologize.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs following its substantial success on a motion for an interlocutory injunction.

The defendants argued the plaintiff achieved only limited success and that the motion could have been avoided if the plaintiff's initial notice of motion had been narrower.

The court found the plaintiff was substantially successful on the core issue of the confidentiality of the Diagnosis Database, which was the focus of the motion.

While acknowledging some unnecessary evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs, reduced from the amount sought, taking into account the factors under Rule 57.01(1).

The Aubrey Dan Family Trust (ADFT) brought a summary judgment motion to allow its income tax appeal for the 2007 taxation year and vacate a reassessment issued by the Minister of Finance.

The motion focused on whether the reassessment was issued outside the statutory limitation period and, if so, whether the limitation period was properly waived.

The court found that the original notice of assessment triggered the normal reassessment period, which expired before the reassessment was issued.

However, the court also found that the T2029 waiver form signed by ADFT was valid under the Ontario Income Tax Act, deeming it a prescribed form and thus effectively waiving the limitation period.

Consequently, ADFT's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The landlord and tenant, who are siblings, entered into a residential tenancy agreement that granted the tenant the right to occupy the basement for her lifetime.

The landlord applied to terminate the tenancy for his daughter's use.

The Landlord and Tenant Board granted the application, finding the life tenancy provision illogical and contrary to the Residential Tenancies Act.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the Board's decision unreasonable.

The Court held that the parties clearly intended a life tenancy, and such an agreement does not violate the Act, as the landlord's statutory termination rights can still be exercised upon the tenant's death.

The appeal was allowed.

The applicant, a tenant of the Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC), sought judicial review of a decision removing his rent-geared-to-income subsidy.

The subsidy was removed after the applicant failed to provide requested corporate financial information and bank statements for his legal professional corporation.

The applicant argued that the TCHC breached procedural fairness and failed to accommodate his disabilities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the TCHC provided ample opportunity to comply, the process was fair, and there was no evidence that the applicant's disabilities prevented him from providing the required documentation.

The plaintiffs, having been successful on an underlying motion, sought $156,437.17 in costs.

The defendants, who were the moving parties on the underlying motion, argued for costs not exceeding $10,000.

The court considered the complexity and duration of the motion, the defendants' adjournment requests, their continuation of the motion to strike conspiracy claims despite decisive authority, and the plaintiffs' offer to settle.

The court found the plaintiffs' requested amount to be extraordinary and disproportionate to the nature of the pleadings motion, which was decided on written submissions.

Comparing to similar cases where costs ranged from $3,300 to $10,000, the court fixed the plaintiffs' costs at $9,000, including a $1,000 discount for the defendants' reasonable expense in responding to the plaintiffs' overreaching demand.

The plaintiffs' offer to settle was not considered a real compromise under Rule 49.13.

The plaintiff, a 42-year-old magazine publisher with 16.5 years of continuous service (including time with a predecessor employer), brought a summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal damages after being terminated without cause.

The court awarded a 16-month reasonable notice period.

The court also resolved disputes over the calculation of commissions and bonuses during the notice period, projecting commissions based on the plaintiff's historical performance and the new magazine's total revenue.

A trust and accounting approach was ordered for mitigation during the remainder of the notice period.

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent a former co-founder and his new company from using a confidential 'Diagnosis Database' for predictive modelling in the insurance industry.

The former co-founder had sold his interest in the plaintiff company and subsequently agreed to conduct a benchmarking study for a former client of the plaintiff.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the misappropriation of trade secrets, that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm from unfair competition, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The injunction was granted.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against the Regional Municipality of Peel and the Crown regarding the administration of his Ontario Works and ODSP benefits.

The defendants brought motions to strike the amended statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court found that the plaintiff's complaints should have been pursued through the statutory appeal routes under the respective social assistance acts and the Human Rights Code, rather than by way of a civil action.

Furthermore, the pleadings contained only bald allegations without supporting material facts.

The motions were granted, the amended statement of claim was struck, and the action was dismissed without costs.

The applicant's employment was terminated and his union took the matter to arbitration.

After an inordinate delay, the arbitrator ordered reinstatement but denied compensation for lost wages.

The union, relying on legal advice, declined to seek judicial review of the award.

The applicant sought standing to bring his own application for judicial review, which was denied by a motions judge.

On a motion to a panel of the Divisional Court to vary that decision, the court dismissed the motion, finding no error in the motions judge's conclusion that the applicant did not fall within any of the exceptions to the rule of union exclusivity.

The applicant, a tobacco manufacturer, challenged the Minister of Finance's demand for security under the Tobacco Tax Act.

The applicant argued that because its products were sold exclusively to on-reserve First Nations retailers and for export, they were not subject to Ontario tax, and thus no security could be demanded.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the plain language of s. 12(2)(f.1) of the Act requires the Minister to demand security for unmarked fine cut tobacco as if it were destined for taxable sale, to protect against the risk of product diversion.

The court also found the Minister's decision to reduce the required security amount was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision that dismissed her claims for wrongful dismissal and age discrimination, but awarded her 23 weeks' notice under a 1998 employment contract.

The appellant argued that a 2011 contract, though void for lack of consideration, successfully rescinded the 1998 contract, or alternatively, that the 1998 termination clause was ambiguous.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that the 1998 contract remained valid and its termination clause was unambiguous.

However, the court granted leave to appeal the motion judge's $15,000 costs award to the respondent, varying it to no costs due to the mixed success of the parties.

The insurer moved for summary judgment dismissing an action under unidentified motorist coverage arising from a highway collision with a guard rail.

The court held that the written record was sufficient to determine the material issues under Rule 20 and that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiff's own accounts of the accident were internally inconsistent, the passenger provided no evidence, and the investigating officer observed no damage or evidence of contact on the tractor-trailer identified at the scene.

The court found the evidence equally consistent with the plaintiff having lost control through fatigue, speed, weather, and an unsafe lane change, and concluded the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that an unidentified driver was involved or at fault.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the claim under the OAPI and OPCF-44R.

The defendants appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motion for a further and better affidavit of documents.

The plaintiff claimed permanent impairment of his left arm from a motor vehicle accident, but the defendants sought medical records relating to prior injuries to the same arm in 2004 and 2006.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the Master erred in law by weighing evidence to determine relevance rather than relying on the pleadings, which clearly put the pre-existing condition in issue.

The plaintiff was ordered to produce the requested medical records.

The defendant brought a motion to stay a defamation action, arguing the Ontario Superior Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction or that another forum was more convenient.

The plaintiff, a foreign corporation, sued the defendant, a Quebec resident, over blog posts accessible in Ontario.

The court applied the real and substantial connection test, finding that the tort of defamation crystallizes where the material is read.

Since the blog was accessed and republished via Twitter in Ontario, the tort was committed in Ontario.

The court dismissed the motion, concluding the defendant failed to show another forum was clearly more appropriate.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike out pleadings of conspiracy in the amended Statement of Claim.

The defendants sought an adjournment pending the outcome of leave applications to the Court of Appeal in related Divisional Court decisions, which was denied due to prior agreements between counsel.

Applying the binding Divisional Court decision in Jevco, the court held that the doctrine of merger could not be raised at the pleadings stage to strike a conspiracy claim.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking $92,100 for unpaid loans, supported by three promissory notes signed by the defendant.

The defendant argued the matter required a trial due to credibility issues, claiming she had repaid earlier loans, that later funds were either 'parked' money or owed real estate commissions, and that she signed the final promissory note under duress.

The court found the defendant's version lacked credibility and corroborating evidence, while the plaintiff's case was supported by the promissory notes.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for $92,100 plus costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend his statement of claim and adjourn the trial.

He sought to add a new cause of action based on a holograph will he claimed to have recently discovered, which would entitle him to the entirety of his deceased brother's estate.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amendments raised a new, statute-barred cause of action.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate a triable issue of discoverability, as his explanation for misplacing and finding the will lacked due diligence.

Furthermore, the court held that granting the amendment would cause non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

Following the settlement and abandonment of an application for judicial review regarding the Crown's duty to consult, the interveners and the respondent Ontario Power Authority sought costs against the applicants.

The Divisional Court dismissed the requests for costs.

The court held that interveners typically do not receive costs and that imposing costs on First Nations in disputes concerning constitutional rights and reconciliation would inappropriately deter such claims.

The court also denied costs to the Ontario Power Authority, noting it played a secondary role and the Crown itself did not seek costs.

A snow removal contractor brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury slip-and-fall claim and related cross-claims.

The plaintiff filed no responding evidence and did not appear on the motion.

The court held that the absence of any admissible evidence regarding the fall, injuries, or sidewalk condition meant there was no genuine issue requiring a trial as against the contractor, and the claim against it was dismissed.

However, the municipality’s cross-claim for contribution and indemnity raised unresolved factual issues, including the interpretation of meteorological evidence and whether contractual snow-removal obligations were met.

Those issues required expert evidence and were determined to be genuine issues for trial.