Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld dismissal of Sheridan Retail’s action under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP law, but reduced the motion costs award from $156,394.54 to $75,000.
Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a s. 137.1 dismissal, holding the action failed at the substantial-merit stage and the costs award stood.
The UBCIC Letter was expression on a matter of public interest; plaintiff conceded substantial merit but failed to show the defendant had no valid defences — justification (substantial truth), fair comment, and qualified privilege each have real prospects of success; plaintiff failed to establish causation or harm sufficient to outweigh the high public interest in protecting the UBCIC's counter-speech; therefore the defamation claim is dismissed under PPPA s.4(2).
Source excerpt
Viewed in its full factual matrix the plaintiff's claims arise from workplace complaints, the employer's investigative process and the resulting termination and are therefore in their essential character disputes governed by the Collective Agreement and the Labour Relations Code; because exclusive arbitral jurisdiction applies, the Court lacks jurisdiction, and the actions are an abuse of process and must be struck with no leave to amend.
Source excerpt
The application to dismiss is denied because it would be inappropriate at the interlocutory stage to make definitive findings on whether the plaintiffs' OSINT tactics breached privacy or constituted abuse of process where parallel claims exist; interests of justice require resolution on a full evidentiary record at trial to avoid fettering the trial judge and creating inconsistent findings.
Source excerpt
The Ontario Court of Appeal held that a confidential complaint to church authorities could meet the public-interest threshold for an anti-SLAPP motion and remitted the matter.
Because the trial judge found and the Court of Appeal upheld that the three defendants engaged in a common design, hid payments behind a sham profit‑sharing agreement, and were equally complicit in a coordinated, malicious defamation campaign, there is no basis to differentiate their degrees of fault; accordingly Hanna must contribute and indemnify one third of the amounts paid (equal apportionment).
Source excerpt
Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal over boat ownership, finding a contract of sale, no joint venture, and no reversible error on fiduciary duty, defamation, damages, or costs.
The ANOCC is overly verbose and improperly pleads evidence, rendering it embarrassing or scandalous under R.9-5(1)(b) and (c); however, because the attribution principle articulated in Scott v. Golden Oaks introduces context‑dependent discretion as to imputing a directing mind's knowledge to a corporation, it is not plain and obvious that H6's claims are statute‑barred and therefore those claims cannot be dismissed under R.9-5(1)(a); the appropriate remedy is to stay the action and require the plaintiffs (Mr. Humphrey and H6) to file a further amended notice of civil claim that complies with…
Source excerpt
Application to strike the defendant's Response is dismissed because, assuming the truth of pleaded facts, the Response is not plainly and obviously devoid of reasonable defences; the pleaded contextual facts are capable of supporting defences of fair comment, qualified privilege and responsible communication, and discovery and malice issues are matters for trial or separate process.
Source excerpt
Explore more
