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 court determined the costs of an appeal where success was divided.

The damages award in favour of the respondents had been reduced, but they remained substantially successful.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 and the principle of proportionality under Rule 1.04(1.1), noting the reasonably complex legal issues and the appellant's unsubstantiated allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation.

The respondents were awarded $13,821.19 in costs inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

The appellant purchaser appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding she breached an agreement of purchase and sale for a condominium unit and awarding the respondent vendors $25,000 in damages plus costs.

The appellant argued she was justified in refusing to close due to concealed Kitec plumbing and stained carpets.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on liability, finding the appellant knew of the plumbing and there was no evidence the carpet stains were concealed.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part on damages, holding the trial judge erred by failing to credit the $15,000 deposit against the damages, thereby reducing the award to $15,000.

The court also reduced the costs award to comply with the 15% statutory limit under the Courts of Justice Act.

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 collision centre appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent damages for unauthorized vehicle repairs.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by denying an adjournment and by granting judgment on a cause of action not pleaded.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge reasonably exercised her discretion regarding the adjournment and correctly determined that the issue of unauthorized repairs was adequately raised in the pleadings.

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.

The landlord brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of an eviction order, for security for costs, and to dismiss the tenant's appeal.

The tenant, who had not paid rent for eight months, requested an adjournment, which was denied.

The court lifted the automatic stay, finding the appeal appeared frivolous and vexatious, and ordered the tenant to post $2,500 as security for costs and pay $2,970 in costs for the motion.