T. Danson

The defendant in a defamation action brought a motion for the production and preservation of documents from non-parties, as well as a sealing order and publication ban regarding the identities and medical information of two non-party insured individuals.

The court granted the unopposed production orders.

Applying the Sherman Estate test, the court granted the sealing order and publication ban for one insured whose identity remained anonymous, but dismissed the request for the other insured whose identity was already public and where the scope of the requested health information ban was too vague.

The plaintiff in a defamation action brought a motion for leave to amend his statement of claim, including adding his professional corporation as a plaintiff, and alternatively sought to extend the time to issue a statement of claim in a placeholder action.

A non-party sought and was granted leave to intervene to oppose certain amendments.

The court denied the amendment to add the professional corporation on the basis of issue estoppel, as a previous judge had already denied the same request.

The court also denied amendments that improperly sought document production or contained scandalous information about the non-party.

The motion to extend time in the placeholder action was dismissed as an abuse of process and a collateral attack on the previous judge's order.

Success being divided, no costs were awarded.

The defendants successfully brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action.

In this costs endorsement, the court considered whether to depart from the presumption of full indemnity costs under s. 137.1(7).

The court denied the plaintiff's request to file a further affidavit and found no reason to depart from the statutory presumption.

The court awarded full indemnity costs of $282,943.42 to the defendant Bent and partial indemnity costs of $30,000 to the defendant Lerners LLP.

The moving party (defendant) brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the responding party's (plaintiff's) defamation action.

The action arose from an email sent by the moving party to a restricted listserv of plaintiff-side personal injury lawyers, which criticized the responding party's conduct as a medical expert in preparing executive summary reports for insurance companies.

The responding party also challenged the constitutionality of s. 137.1 under ss. 7 and 15(1) of the Charter.

The court found that the email related to a matter of public interest.

The court held that the responding party failed to show there were grounds to believe the moving party had no valid defence, as the defences of substantial justification and qualified privilege were reasonably likely to succeed.

Furthermore, the public interest in protecting the expression outweighed the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue.

The court also dismissed the Charter challenges, finding that reputation is not a free-standing right under s. 7 and that potential defamation plaintiffs do not constitute an analogous group under s. 15(1).

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff in a defamation action brought a preliminary motion prior to the hearing of the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiff sought to record oral arguments, compel answers to cross-examination refusals, amend the statement of claim to add a corporate plaintiff, and file late affidavit evidence.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, finding that the proposed amendments would frustrate the purpose of the anti-SLAPP legislation and that there was no reasonable explanation for the late filing of evidence.