Victoria Wicks

Karen Bell appealed the dismissal of her defamation action against Garden River First Nation and two councillors.

The action arose from a Censure Motion passed by the Council, which stated Bell had shared "false information" in a Facebook post.

The motion judge found the statement prima facie defamatory but upheld the defence of justification, concluding the information was indeed false.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Bell's motion to adduce fresh evidence, finding it irrelevant, and affirmed the motion judge's interpretation of the Censure Motion.

The Court agreed that the specific quoted information in Bell's Facebook post was false and misleading, thereby upholding the defence of justification.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, RE/MAX Realtron Realty Inc., appealed the dismissal of its claim for commission on a property sale.

The trial judge, in a mini-trial ordered during a summary judgment motion, found that two numbered companies involved in the transaction were distinct corporate entities, and the corporate veil could not be pierced.

Consequently, the holdover clause in the initial purchase agreement did not apply to the subsequent sale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings regarding corporate distinctness, the application of the corporate veil test, or the absence of wrongdoing.

The court also upheld the substantial costs award against the appellant, noting its rejection of settlement offers.

The applicant's employer was investigated by the Ontario Securities Commission.

The applicant was summoned to give evidence but refused to answer questions about their employment, citing a confidentiality clause in their employment agreement.

The applicant applied for directions and a declaration that the information was privileged.

The Commission cross-applied for declarations that the applicant must answer the questions.

The court dismissed the application and allowed the cross-application, finding that the information did not meet the Wigmore criteria for case-by-case privilege and that the applicant was required to attend the examination and answer all relevant questions, subject only to valid claims of privilege.