Zijad Saskin

The appellants appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice for a single payment of $10,000.

The Court of Appeal found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the amount in issue fell below the jurisdictional threshold.

The appeal was dismissed and the matter was directed to the Divisional Court as the appropriate forum.

The appellant appealed a trial costs decision ordering him and a co-defendant to pay $35,177.74 in costs after being found liable for $10,000 in damages for defaming the respondent seniors' facility.

The appellant argued he was a successful whistleblower and relied on the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act to claim substantial indemnity costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the trial judge's discretionary costs award and noting that the anti-SLAPP provisions did not apply to a costs decision after a trial where the plaintiff succeeded.

Costs decision following a defamation trial where the plaintiff was successful against two defendants but unsuccessful against a third.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $64,000.

The court awarded the plaintiff $35,177.74 in costs, noting mixed success on the issues.

The successful self-represented defendant was awarded $2,000 in costs against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, a non-profit seniors' residence, brought a defamation action against a former board president and a self-described journalist over an online article and a letter alleging financial irregularities, fraud, and tenant abuse.

The court found the statements defamatory.

The defendants successfully established the defences of justification and fair comment regarding the financial irregularities, as the court found the plaintiff had violated its own purchasing policies.

However, the defences failed regarding the allegations of tenant abuse, which were not substantially true.

The defence of responsible communication also failed because the journalist did not diligently investigate the plaintiff's side of the story.

The court awarded $10,000 in general damages and ordered the article removed.

The plaintiffs sought an order of contempt and a Mareva injunction against the defendants for failing to comply with a prior production order regarding $155,000 in missing unsecured loans.

The court found that the individual defendant had been evasive and failed to produce the required financial records, raising suspicions of spoliation and financial manipulation.

The court granted an interlocutory Mareva injunction freezing the defendants' assets and gave the individual defendant one final opportunity to comply with the production order before facing a renewed contempt motion.

The appellant appealed an order declaring a Notice of Garnishment served on a law firm invalid and unenforceable.

The Divisional Court found that the motions judge erred in law by holding that funds in the lawyers' trust account were not subject to garnishment, as the funds were advanced to satisfy a mortgage debt and could have been withdrawn by the debtor.

However, the court upheld the motions judge's decision based on his equitable discretion, finding no error in his conclusion that the garnishment was an oppressive step in the context of the family dispute.

The appeal was dismissed.

The creditor son served a Notice of Garnishee on the debtor father's lawyers, who were holding funds in trust to discharge a mortgage owed to the son.

The garnishee brought a motion for directions.

The court declared the garnishee invalid, finding that funds deposited with a law firm in trust with specific instructions do not create a debtor-creditor relationship between the firm and the client, and therefore are not subject to garnishment.

The father was permitted to discharge the mortgage, and interest was suspended due to the son's oppressive conduct.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that the respondent had loaned her a significant amount of money.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in accepting parts of the respondent's evidence while rejecting others, reversed the burden of proof, and provided inadequate reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's factual findings were reasonable, the burden of proof was correctly applied, and the reasons were adequate.

Costs of $6,000 were awarded to the respondent.