Evangelisti v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
In the context of an urgent case-managed application, the judge did not err in refusing pre-hearing cross-examination, did not demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias, and correctly dismissed the Charter claims; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the orders below are affirmed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2024 ONCA 903
- Parties
- Appellant: Gianni Evangelisti; Appellant: Freedom Pools Inc.; Respondent: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC); Respondent: Viktorija Jocebicia; Respondent: Rimas Jocebicia; Respondent: Ayelet Kushnirsky; Respondent: Michael Kushnirsky; Respondent: John Carusone; Respondent: Paul Polyviout; Respondent: Teresa Polyviout; Respondent: Gary Jones; Respondent: Brian Jewell
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 12 December 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Superior Court Order (application for Injunction)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; order of the application judge affirmed
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunction, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Bias (reasonable Apprehension of Bias), Cross Examination, Freedom of Expression (charter S.2(b))
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Gianni Evangelisti
Appellant
Freedom Pools Inc.
Appellant
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)
Respondent
Viktorija Jocebicia
Respondent
Rimas Jocebicia
Respondent
Ayelet Kushnirsky
Respondent
Michael Kushnirsky
Respondent
John Carusone
Respondent
Paul Polyviout
Respondent
Teresa Polyviout
Respondent
Gary Jones
Respondent
Brian Jewell
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Superior Court Order (application for Injunction)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application judge erred in refusing pre-hearing cross-examination
- 2 Whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias by the application judge
- 3 Whether the application judge erred in dismissing the appellants' Charter claims
Ratio Decidendi
In the context of an urgent case-managed application, the judge did not err in refusing pre-hearing cross-examination, did not demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias, and correctly dismissed the Charter claims; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the orders below are affirmed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; order of the application judge affirmed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Order of Justice Robert Centa dated April 8, 2024 affirmed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Evangelisti v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2024-12-12 Neutral citation 2024 ONCA 903 Docket numbers COA-24-CV-0472 Judges Fairburn, J. Michal; Trotter, Gary T.; Zarnett, Benjamin Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Evangelisti v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2024 ONCA 903 DATE: 20241212 DOCKET: COA-24-CV-0472 Fairburn A.C.J.O., Trotter and Zarnett JJ.A. BETWEEN Gianni Evangelisti and Freedom Pools Inc. Applicants (Appellants) and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)*, Viktorija Jocebicia, Rimas Jocebicia, Ayelet Kushnirsky, Michael Kushnirsky, John Carusone, Paul Polyviout, Teresa Polyviout, Gary Jones and Brian Jewell Respondents (Respondent*) Gianni Evangelisti, acting in person Ryder Gilliland and Michael Robson, for the respondent Heard and released orally: December 9, 2024 On appeal from the order of Justice Robert Centa of the Superior Court of Justice dated April 8, 2024, with reasons reported at 2024 ONSC 2048. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellants are being sued by numerous customers. The CBC decided to publish a story about these disputes. The CBC asked the appellant, Mr. Evangelisti, for a response. Instead of responding, he applied for an injunction to prevent the CBC from publishing anything in relation to this matter. The application was dismissed. [2] The appellants raise three grounds of appeal in their written submissions: 1. Did the application judge err in refusing cross-examination before the hearing of the application? 2. Was there a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the application judge? 3. Did the application judge err in dismissing the appellant’s Charter claims? [3] The appellants focused their oral submissions on allegations of procedural unfairness. We see no error. [4] In the exercise of his case management powers, considered against the backdrop of what was said to be an urgent application, the application judge’s refusal of cross-examination and the way he conducted the hearing does not reflect bias. [5] We also see no error in the reasons for dismissing the application on its merits. [6] The appeal is dismissed. [7] Costs are ordered in the amount of $6,000, payable to the respondent, all-inclusive. “Fairburn A.C.J.O.” “G.T. Trotter J.A.” “B. Zarnett J.A.”