3 total
Application dismissed decision
The court addressed two competing motions arising from overlapping proceedings: an application commenced by 9165-6462 Quebec Inc. in Sudbury seeking enforcement of a Transfer Agreement and declarations regarding share ownership, and an action commenced by the plaintiff in Cochrane seeking declarations that the Transfer Agreement is void and that he remains the owner of shares in the DJB companies.
The plaintiff sought to consolidate the proceedings and transfer them to Cochrane, while 9165 Inc. sought to stay or dismiss the action in favour of the application.
The court found that permitting the action to proceed would constitute an abuse of process and an improper collateral attack on a prior judicial order declining to transfer the application.
The court stayed the action against 9165 Inc. pending resolution of the application and dismissed the consolidation motion without prejudice.
Anti-SLAPP motion dismissed; public interest in allowing defamation action to proceed outweighed protecting the expression.
The defendant brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP).
The parties had a brief relationship, after which the defendant made public allegations in the gaming community and on social media that the plaintiff had sexually assaulted her and was a sexual predator.
The court found that while the expressions related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff's defamation claim had substantial merit and there were grounds to defeat the defence of justification.
The court concluded that the harm suffered by the plaintiff was sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the action to proceed outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendant's expressions.
The motion was dismissed, with no costs awarded.
The court ordered the release of undisputed fire insurance proceeds to the applicant, finding opposing counsel's email quantifying their claim was not without prejudice.
This case involved cross-applications concerning the distribution of fire insurance proceeds following significant damage to a shared property.
Bonny Bunda sought the release of approximately two-thirds of the funds held in trust, while Andrew Carry requested all funds be paid into court and a reference for distribution.
The court granted Bonny Bunda's application, ordering a specific amount released to her and the remainder paid into court for resolution in Small Claims Court.
The court determined that an email from Andrew Carry's counsel, stating his claim amount, was not a without prejudice communication and could be relied upon.
