Tristen Janelle Audet

The defendants brought a motion under Ontario's Anti-SLAPP legislation to dismiss a defamation action initiated by the plaintiffs.

The action stemmed from "vicious" online reviews posted by the defendants about the plaintiffs' plumbing business and its principal.

The court determined that the online reviews constituted "expression" on a "matter of public interest." While the plaintiffs' defamation claim was found to have substantial merit and no valid defence, the court ultimately dismissed the action.

It concluded that the minimal harm suffered by the plaintiffs did not outweigh the significant public interest in protecting freedom of expression, even when the expression was offensive and vitriolic.

The court also clarified that the plaintiffs had not properly pleaded the tort of intentional interference with economic relations.

The plaintiff, Can Duc Diep, advanced $500,000 to the defendant, Hien Cong Pham.

Diep claimed this was a loan, while Pham asserted it was an investment in a magnetic generator venture that ultimately failed.

Diep brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to recover the funds, and Pham brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action against him.

The court found that the advance was a loan, supported by a written loan agreement, a "loan" notation on the cheque, and Pham's conduct, including a partial repayment and a statement about selling his house to repay the debt.

The court rejected Pham's arguments for rectification of the agreement and his claim that the advance was an investment, noting that Pham never personally owned the shares he purported to sell.

The court also determined that granting summary judgment on the loan issue was appropriate, despite a pending fraudulent conveyance claim against Pham and his wife, Huong Thi Duong, as the issues were distinct and already bifurcated.

The applicant, Shrawan Motwane, sought partial summary judgment to dismiss a counterclaim against him personally and for the return of personal belongings seized by the defendants.

The court granted the return of some personal items, finding they were not subject to the chattel mortgage, but dismissed the motion to dismiss the counterclaim, citing genuine issues requiring a trial and the risk of duplicative findings.

The appellant, Royal Windsor Collision Centre, appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent, Julie Hoffman, damages for unauthorized vehicle repairs and rental car costs.

The appeal focused on the award for unauthorized repairs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge reasonably exercised discretion regarding an adjournment request and correctly determined that the "repair without authorization" issue was adequately pleaded.

The court also found it unnecessary to rule on the conversion claim, but noted the original pleading did not allege conversion.