3 total
Summary judgment Motion granted in part
This anti-SLAPP motion sought to dismiss a defamation counterclaim by Iron Horse Corporation and Robin St. Martin in the "Yates Action" and a separate action (the "St. Martin Action") for malicious prosecution and defamation against Robin Yates and Larry Yates.
The court found that the Yates' expressions related to matters of public interest, including gendered harassment by a powerful individual and the functioning of the justice system.
While the defamation counterclaim in the Yates Action was found to have substantial merit and was not dismissed due to the ongoing litigation, the St. Martin Action was dismissed.
The court concluded that the St. Martin Action lacked substantial merit, particularly the malicious prosecution claims, and was primarily strategic, with the public interest favoring its dismissal.
Application for judicial review of dental board's refusal to hear late compassionate appeal dismissed.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Executive Committee of the National Dental Examining Board of Canada, which refused to hear his late compassionate appeal regarding a failed dental exam.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Committee's decision on the untimeliness of the appeal was reasonable and that the applicant was not denied procedural fairness by the lack of an oral hearing.
Conditional sentence ban for indictable sexual assault was struck as overbroad.
Following separate sexual assault convictions and before sentencing, the applicants brought joined constitutional applications challenging the prohibition on conditional sentence orders for indictable sexual assault under s. 742.1(f)(iii) of the Criminal Code.
The court held that the provision was overbroad under s. 7 of the Charter because sexual assault encompasses a broad spectrum of conduct, including cases not so serious as to require imprisonment to maintain the integrity of the justice system.
Relying on the reasoning in Sharma and a prior superior court decision extending that analysis to sexual assault, the court rejected the Crown's mootness argument and granted both applications.
The court found no cogent reason, under principles of judicial comity, to depart from the earlier decision.
