S. Stewart

The defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action.

The action arose from Facebook posts made by the defendant accusing the plaintiff, a school principal, of sexual harassment and abuse of power, using the #MeToo hashtag.

The court found that while the expressions related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff's claim had substantial merit and there were grounds to believe the defendant had no valid defence.

The court concluded that the significant harm suffered by the plaintiff, including loss of employment and community standing, outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression.

The motion was dismissed, allowing the defamation action to proceed.

The plaintiffs sought a declaration that an equipment lease, general security agreement, and personal guarantee with the defendant financing company were void after the equipment supplier absconded with the advanced funds and failed to deliver the equipment.

The financing company counterclaimed for the balance owing under the lease.

The court found that the financing company failed to ensure delivery of the equipment before advancing funds, constituting a fundamental breach.

Furthermore, the court held that the no-cancellation clause was unenforceable because the financing company failed to bring it to the plaintiffs' attention.

The agreements were declared void, the financing company's claim was dismissed, and it was ordered to return the funds paid by the plaintiffs.

The defendants brought a motion seeking leave and an order striking the statement of claim and dismissing the action due to the plaintiff’s repeated failure to comply with two court orders requiring attendance for continued examination for discovery.

The plaintiff failed to attend four scheduled discovery dates and provided no adequate evidence explaining the breaches.

The court held that although the plaintiff’s conduct demonstrated non-compliance with court orders, the record did not justify immediate dismissal of the action given the procedural context and the absence of a clear "last chance" order.

Applying a contextual approach to sanctions for breach of court orders, the court declined to dismiss the action but imposed strict conditions compelling attendance for discovery and compliance with undertakings.

The court issued a final "last chance" order warning that any further failure to attend would result in dismissal of the action.