William Main

The applicant, Junhua Wang, sought the appointment of a receiver and manager over real property owned by the respondents, Hong Jing and Lihan Jing, under a matured and unpaid mortgage.

The respondents objected, arguing the mortgage was part of a broader financing arrangement involving third parties and ongoing litigation.

The court found the appointment of a receiver just and convenient, given the default, the risk to the applicant’s security, and the lack of evidence that the applicant was party to the broader arrangements.

The court also addressed evidentiary objections regarding the applicant’s affidavits and settled the process for finalizing the receivership order.

The applicants, a group of companies undergoing CCAA proceedings, sought to extend the existing stay of proceedings to DAK Capital Inc., a non-debtor third-party guarantor involved in an arbitration with Canopy Growth Corporation.

Canopy opposed, arguing that CCAA s. 11.04 prohibits such an extension for guarantors.

The court, relying on the broad inherent jurisdiction under CCAA s. 11 and recent Ontario precedents, found that s. 11.04 is a clarifying provision, not a prohibitive one, and granted the temporary stay against DAK Capital to prevent distraction from the ongoing restructuring efforts.

The appellant, Glassdoor Inc., appealed a motion judge's order denying its anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action.

The action stemmed from an anonymous critical employee review posted on Glassdoor's website about the respondent, Echelon Environmental Inc. The appellant argued the review related to a matter of public interest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the review, concerning private complaints about a company providing specialized services to a small number of customers, did not relate to a matter of public interest.

The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal the costs order was also dismissed.

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.

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.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful appeal by Subway against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) in an anti-SLAPP motion.

Subway sought partial indemnity costs of $61,291.30.

CBC requested reconsideration of the costs award based on Supreme Court of Canada anti-SLAPP decisions (Pointes and Bent) or a reduction to $17,000.

The Court of Appeal upheld its decision to award partial indemnity costs, distinguishing the case from Bent due to the availability of substantial judicial guidance on s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act prior to CBC's motion, and the significant costs incurred by Subway.

The court awarded Subway $40,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The appellants, Subway, appealed the dismissal of their $210 million defamation action against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) under an anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) motion (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act).

The action arose from a CBC Marketplace report alleging Subway's chicken products contained only 50% chicken DNA.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in applying a higher standard for the "no valid defence" test and in weighing the public interest.

The Court determined that Subway had established grounds to believe CBC had no valid defence of responsible communication and that the public interest in allowing the action to proceed outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression, given the significant reputational and financial harm alleged and the lack of urgency in disseminating unverified information.

The appeal was allowed, and the defamation action against CBC was permitted to continue.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' claims for intrusion upon seclusion and all claims against the individual defendant lawyer, Costantino.

The plaintiffs cross-moved to amend their Statement of Claim to add new defendants and causes of action for breach of confidence and Human Rights Code violations.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to plead the necessary elements for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, as the disclosure of a witness list in a quasi-judicial proceeding was legally justified and not highly offensive.

The court struck the privacy claims and dismissed the action against the lawyer, finding she owed no duty of care to the opposing party's witness and her actions were protected by absolute privilege.

The plaintiffs' motion to amend was dismissed as the proposed claims were doomed to fail.

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.

The court determined costs following two anti-SLAPP motions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The defendant broadcaster, having successfully dismissed the defamation claim against it, was awarded costs on a full indemnity basis, though the requested amount was reduced to $500,000 plus disbursements due to the motion's excessive complexity.

The plaintiff, having successfully defeated the defendant university's novel anti-SLAPP motion regarding a negligence claim, was awarded partial indemnity costs of $222,000, as the university's motion lacked the characteristics of a true SLAPP suit.

The defendants, CBC and Trent University, brought anti-SLAPP motions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiffs' $210 million defamation and negligence action.

The action arose from a Marketplace report alleging the plaintiffs' chicken sandwiches contained only 50% chicken based on DNA tests conducted by Trent University.

The court granted CBC's motion, finding that while the defamation claim had substantial merit, CBC had a valid defence of responsible communication and the public interest in protecting investigative journalism outweighed the plaintiffs' private harm.

The court dismissed Trent University's motion, holding that the negligence claim regarding faulty laboratory testing did not arise from an expression relating to a matter of public interest and was therefore not subject to dismissal under the anti-SLAPP provisions.

This document sets out a procedural timetable for an anti-SLAPP motion brought by the defendants.

It establishes deadlines for the defendants' motion records, the plaintiffs' responding record, completion of examinations, and the submission of factums and replies, culminating in a hearing scheduled for September 24-25, 2019.

The Plaintiffs (Subway) sought a sealing order for 10 documents in a defamation action, comprising six financial documents and four private contracts.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) opposed the motion, citing the open courts principle.

The court applied the Sierra Club test, requiring a serious risk to an important interest and a balancing of salutary and deleterious effects.

The court found that the financial documents met the test due to detailed, commercially sensitive sales data that could provide competitors with an unearned advantage, and ordered them sealed.

However, the four private agreements (supplier and internal corporate structure agreements) were not sealed, as the potential harm from their disclosure was deemed speculative and did not outweigh the public interest in open courts.

No costs were awarded due to the mixed success and public interest nature of the opposition.

This endorsement from a case conference addresses scheduling issues in a complex action, particularly concerning examinations for discovery and contemplated motions.

Due to a change in counsel for the main defendant, CBC, discoveries were adjourned.

CBC's new counsel seeks further disclosure, which the plaintiffs state is largely held by a third-party contractor.

The court suggests scheduling a "double motion" for production if necessary.

Additionally, the court emphasizes the need for CBC to promptly decide and bring any contemplated anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, citing Court of Appeal guidance that such motions should be brought at an early stage.

The court defers rescheduling discoveries until these motions are resolved.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to strike a negligence claim without leave to amend.

The respondent, a lawyer acting as a notary, had notarized an affidavit containing allegations against the appellant.

The affidavit was subsequently published in a newspaper article.

The appellant's original defamation claim was statute-barred, so he amended to allege negligence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that no duty of care existed between the appellant and respondent.

The court held that a lawyer does not owe a duty to third parties to verify the accuracy of affidavit contents, and there was insufficient proximity between the parties to ground a duty of care.

Abdirizak Ibrahim Jama sued National Bank for $72,000, alleging that the bank's failure to dispense funds from ATMs in Ethiopia led to his luggage being seized and him having to flee the country.

Both parties brought motions for summary judgment.

The court found that the National Bank was not liable for the alleged ATM failures, as liability would rest with the merchant banks operating the ATMs.

Furthermore, the court concluded that there were no failed currency withdrawals, but rather unsuccessful attempts due to exceeding daily limits, insufficient funds, or incorrect PIN entries.

Even if failures occurred, the claimed damages were deemed too remote and not reasonably foreseeable under contract law principles (Hadley v. Baxendale).

The National Bank's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Mr. Jama's action was dismissed.