Sydney McIvor

The minor respondent sued the appellant for damages resulting from a dog bite.

The appellant sought leave to issue a third party claim against the respondent's mother for negligent supervision, eleven months after the statement of defence was filed.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding prejudice to the respondent and a lack of merit in the proposed claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, clarifying that the test for assessing the merits of a proposed third party claim out of time is the test for an extension of time, not the strict pleadings test under Rule 21.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP).

The parties had a brief relationship, after which the defendant made public allegations in the gaming community and on social media that the plaintiff had sexually assaulted her and was a sexual predator.

The court found that while the expressions related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff's defamation claim had substantial merit and there were grounds to defeat the defence of justification.

The court concluded that the harm suffered by the plaintiff was sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the action to proceed outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendant's expressions.

The motion was dismissed, with no costs awarded.

The plaintiff provided electrical engineering and consulting services for a cannabis grow operation on tribal lands in California.

The project was shut down by a federal law enforcement raid, and the plaintiff was left with unpaid invoices for its work and materials.

The plaintiff sued the defendant, who had provided the funding for the project, arguing that the site manager who hired the plaintiff was acting as the defendant's agent.

The court found that the defendant and the tribe were in a partnership to operate the project, and that the site manager had actual authority to contract on behalf of the partnership.

The defendant was held liable for the unpaid invoices plus contractual interest.