Canada Case Law

Paradigm Change Consulting Inc. v. Boparai

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding the motion judge did not err in granting partial summary judgment or in continuing the Mareva injunction because her findings of fraudulent misrepresentation and the amounts owing were open on the record, she correctly applied r.20.04(2.1) in weighing evidence, and there were no triable issues of credibility requiring a trial.

Source excerpt

• Mareva injunction
• Summary judgment
• Fraudulent misrepresentation
• Rescission of contract
• Costs
• Damages

Read case analysis

Pacific Granite Manufacturing Ltd. v. Lee

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found only the original Google review defamatory, awarding modest general damages to the company and its owners while dismissing aggravated and punitive damages and an injunction.

• Defamatory meaning
• Publication and reference
• Internet reviews
• General damages
• Aggravated damages
• Punitive damages

Read case analysis

I Buy Beauty LLC v. Dong

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found repeated online statements by a YouTuber defamatory, rejected any unpleaded truth or fair comment defence, and awarded damages plus a permanent injunction.

• Publication
• Justification/truth
• Fair comment
• General damages
• Aggravated damages
• Punitive damages

Read case analysis

Chan v. Liang

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court granted a permanent injunction and awarded damages after finding repeated interference with a fence project, trespass, and nuisance from a surveillance camera.

• Boundary dispute
• Survey evidence
• Fence construction
• Surveillance nuisance
• Permanent injunction
• General damages

Read case analysis

Eddie v. Lepp

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed because the applicant did not form a bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant period and provided an unacceptable explanation for the delay (electing to pursue a Second Action instead), the proposed appeal lacked merit as it primarily challenged discretionary factual findings made on uncontradicted evidence, and granting an extension would prejudice respondents and harm the administration of justice by likely causing a mistrial of ongoing related proceedings.

Source excerpt

• Summary judgment
• Extension of time to appeal
• Collateral attack
• Cross-examination scope
• Costs
• Publication removal

Read case analysis

Sauck v. Carr

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Court assessed damages after default judgment for an ongoing online defamation campaign and trespasses, awarding Sauck and Innovative $253,500 plus costs.

• General damages
• Aggravated damages
• Punitive damages
• Injunctive relief
• Internet publication
• Default judgment

Read case analysis

Arvanitis v. Slater Vecchio LLP

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed Vicky Arvanitis’s late application to extend time to seek review of a single-justice order, and allowed Slater Vecchio LLP’s cross-application.

• Extension of time to apply for review
• Vexatious proceedings (s.22 court of appeal act)
• Leave to amend application
• Summary judgment
• Discretionary review
• Prejudice and delay

Read case analysis

Eks v. Tadeu

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's factual findings were reasonable and unsupported by palpable and overriding error; the psychologist's evidence was properly rejected for lack of foundation; the psychiatrist's report was not properly in evidence; even if pleading standards were stricter than ideal, the facts did not establish negligence; and the trial judge acted within his discretion in refusing a permanent injunction.

Source excerpt

• Expert evidence admissibility
• Pleading duty of care
• Standard of appellate review
• Discretionary equitable relief

Read case analysis

Hudson v. Myong

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Defamation judgment over Facebook messages and emails. The court found most statements defamatory, rejected justification and fair comment, and awarded damages plus a permanent injunction.

• Publication
• Authorship
• Justification (truth)
• Fair comment
• Malice
• Aggravated damages

Read case analysis

College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia v. Ezzati

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held that signing consent forms as the treating doctor and explaining Botox and filler risks could amount to practising medicine, but upheld the acquittal on actual injections.

• Unauthorized practice of medicine
• Use of reserved titles
• Informed consent
• Professional standards
• Search and seizure of evidence
• Unauthorized-practice-of-medicine

Read case analysis