Tim J. Harmar

The defendant, Central-McKinlay International Ltd., brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiffs, Raymond Lacroix and R & L Lacroix Transportation Inc., under Rule 56.01(1)(c) due to an unpaid Divisional Court cost order of $8,467.50.

The court found the trigger for security for costs was met and the onus shifted to the plaintiffs to demonstrate that ordering security would be unjust.

Considering the low likelihood of success for the plaintiffs' claims (which largely relied on an unenforceable oral agreement for real property interest due to the Statute of Frauds), their history of intentional delay in prior proceedings, and questionable financial decisions, the court determined that ordering security for costs was just.

This is a costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The appellants were ordered to pay the respondents $25,000, all-inclusive, for the costs of the appeal.

The decision follows an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The appellants, a Township and its officials, appealed the dismissal of their anti-SLAPP motion seeking to dismiss a defamation and misfeasance in public office action brought by the respondents, owners of a community newspaper.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reviewable error in the motion judge's application of the anti-SLAPP test under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, including the weighing of public interest in expression versus harm to reputation, and the assessment of available defences.

The court affirmed that the motion judge correctly applied the legal tests and that anti-SLAPP motions are not the forum for definitive determinations of complex defences.

The court issued a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Both parties sought costs.

The defendants claimed over $250,000 for eight different court steps, arguing the self-represented plaintiffs caused unnecessary legal expenses.

The plaintiffs sought $30,000 for successfully defending the motion.

The court awarded the defendants $34,000 for various interlocutory steps, finding the plaintiffs' litigation strategy was disproportionate and caused unnecessary expenses.

The court declined to award costs to the plaintiffs for the s. 137.1 motion, applying the statutory presumption against costs for successful responding parties due to their conduct.

The defendants, a municipality and its councillors, brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims of defamation and misfeasance in public office.

The plaintiffs, owners of a local newspaper, alleged the defendants targeted them for their investigative journalism.

The court struck portions of the plaintiffs' affidavits for containing improper argument and opinion.

However, the court dismissed the anti-SLAPP motion, finding that the plaintiffs' claims had substantial merit, the defendants' defences were not guaranteed to succeed, and the public interest in allowing the action to proceed outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expressions.

The plaintiffs brought a multi-faceted motion seeking to dismiss the defendants' anti-SLAPP application, strike affidavits, compel re-attendance for cross-examination, compel answers to undertakings, compel the examination of a witness, and compel document production related to a legal opinion and general inspection.

The court declined to hear the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the anti-SLAPP application, finding it was barred by res judicata and issue estoppel.

The court ordered a witness to re-attend cross-examination, for undertakings to be fulfilled, and for a revised document list to be provided.

The request to examine another witness was adjourned.

The court did not rule on the implied waiver of solicitor-client privilege regarding certain documents due to an insufficient evidentiary record, but allowed the parties to return for a discrete hearing on this issue.

The defendants were reminded to comply with general document disclosure.

The appellant land developer brought a $6 million breach of contract action against a not-for-profit environmental association and its members, alleging that the association's president had breached a settlement agreement by testifying before the Ontario Municipal Board regarding the ecological impact of the appellant's proposed subdivision development.

The respondents brought a pre-trial motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action as a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

The Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondents met the threshold burden under s. 137.1(3) and that the appellant failed to satisfy either the merits-based hurdle under s. 137.1(4)(a) or the public interest weighing exercise under s. 137.1(4)(b).

The Court provided comprehensive guidance on the proper interpretation and application of Ontario's anti-SLAPP framework, clarifying the standards of 'satisfies,' 'arises from,' 'substantial merit,' and the public interest weighing exercise.

The decision affirms that freedom of expression and public participation in democratic processes are fundamental values that the anti-SLAPP legislation was enacted to protect.

This is a costs endorsement on appeal from a Superior Court of Justice order.

The appellants appealed a decision and the Court of Appeal addressed the application of cost presumptions under the Court of Justice Act.

The court held that the statutory cost presumptions in s. 137.1(7) and (8) do not apply on appeal, as the statutory language does not expressly refer to costs on appeals.

However, the court exercised its discretion to apply the presumption for the motion costs and awarded the appellants costs on a full indemnity basis for the motion and on a partial indemnity basis for the appeal.

The defendant brought a motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a breach of contract action.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant breached a settlement agreement by giving testimony before the Ontario Municipal Board regarding the environmental impact of the plaintiff's proposed development.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding that although the testimony constituted expression relating to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff had satisfied the merits and public interest hurdles under section 137.1(4).

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the plaintiff failed to meet its burden under section 137.1(4)(a) regarding substantial merit and that the motion judge erred in interpreting "substantial merit" as referring to the seriousness of the subject matter rather than the potential merits of the claim.

The Court also found insufficient evidence of damages to satisfy the public interest balancing under section 137.1(4)(b).

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for breach of a settlement agreement, invoking Ontario's anti-SLAPP legislation (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act).

The court found that the defendants' expression (testimony at an Ontario Municipal Board hearing regarding a land development's environmental impact) related to a matter of public interest, thereby satisfying the first part of the anti-SLAPP test.

However, the plaintiff successfully demonstrated that their action had substantial merit, the defendants had no valid defence, and the public interest in upholding the sanctity and finality of settlement agreements in litigation outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression.

Consequently, the motion to dismiss was denied, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs, given the novelty and merit of the anti-SLAPP motion.