Sophia Irish Dales

The defendants, a union and its representatives, brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action initiated by the plaintiffs, a hotel and its parent company.

The defamation claim arose from a press release issued by the defendants alleging the hotel required employees to remove union Pride pins, implying a lack of support for the LGBTQ+ community.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the plaintiffs' defamation claim had substantial merit and no valid defences (justification, qualified privilege, fair/reasonable comment), particularly due to evidence of malice and the untruthful implication in the press release.

The court concluded that the public interest in allowing the defamation action to continue outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression, and awarded partial indemnity costs of $75,000 to the plaintiffs.

Following the dismissal of Hockey Canada's motion to withdraw an affidavit and the vacating of its summary judgment motion, the plaintiff sought costs.

The plaintiff claimed partial indemnity costs for the motion and full indemnity for costs thrown away, totaling over $70,000.

The court found the plaintiff's claimed hours excessive due to duplication of work by multiple timekeepers and determined that some work done for the summary judgment motion could be repurposed for trial.

The court fixed the costs payable by Hockey Canada to the plaintiff at $25,000 all-inclusive.

This decision addresses two motions: one by AIG Insurance Company of Canada for summary judgment against the plaintiff, Neil Doef, regarding a paralysis benefit claim, and another by Hockey Canada seeking leave to withdraw an affidavit and replace it.

The court dismissed AIG's summary judgment motion due to an unjustifiable 42-month delay in bringing it, finding it contrary to the principles of timely access to justice.

Hockey Canada's motion for leave to withdraw the affidavit was also dismissed, as granting it would have prejudiced the plaintiff by denying him the opportunity to cross-examine the affiants before the summary judgment motion, which was subsequently vacated.