3 total
Anti-SLAPP motion dismissed as anonymous online reviews about workplace conditions were a private grievance, not public interest.
The plaintiffs sued the defendants for defamation over anonymous reviews posted by a former employee on Glassdoor's website.
Glassdoor brought a motion to dismiss the action under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, arguing the reviews were expressions on a matter of public interest.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the reviews regarding workplace conditions, salaries, and management style constituted a private grievance between a former employee and employer, rather than a matter of public interest.
Appeal dismissed; providing a witness list at a tribunal hearing does not constitute an actionable breach of privacy.
The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision striking their claims for breach of privacy, breach of confidence, and punitive damages against an insurer and its counsel.
The claims arose after the appellant's friend attended a Licence Appeal Tribunal case conference as a witness, and the insurer's counsel reported this to the insurer, who subsequently terminated the friend's employment.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the attendance at the tribunal and the provision of a witness list did not constitute private information, and that the insurer's counsel owed no duty to the appellants.
Furthermore, any claim regarding the insurer's bad faith handling of the accident benefits claim was barred by section 280 of the Insurance Act.
Surgeon found liable for medical malpractice after taking down prior fundoplication without informed consent.
The plaintiff underwent bariatric surgery performed by the defendant.
The defendant took down a prior fundoplication without the plaintiff's informed consent, causing severe acid reflux that ultimately required the removal of the plaintiff's stomach.
The court found the defendant breached the standard of care by performing a contraindicated surgery without adequate experience and without obtaining informed consent.
The limitation period defence failed as the plaintiff only discovered the cause of her injuries later.
The court awarded general damages and Family Law Act damages to the plaintiffs.