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
Ontario Court of Appeal allowed a libel appeal in part, upholding liability and damages but setting aside an overbroad permanent injunction for redrafting.
The court granted the media applications in part: Exhibit 1 (admissions of fact) may be copied and published but Appendix A (medical records) is excluded; specified narrow extracts of the Starbucks/Pacific Centre CCTV footage in Exhibit 2 may be viewed, copied and published by CTV only after pixelating/blurring all faces other than the deceased and the accused and pixelating badge numbers; other videos in Exhibit 2 may be viewed but not copied or published. This tailored editing is necessary and proportionate to protect privacy, dignity, witness safety and police safety while preserving the o…
Source excerpt
Court conducted full s.4 PPPA analysis: applicant met threshold that Article was expression on matter of public interest; respondents have a real prospect that claim is defamatory (spying, cult, implication in homicide) and may have substantial merit, and respondents met parts of s.4(2)(a) concerning merits, but respondents failed to establish a real prospect of proving malice and failed under s.4(2)(b) to show harm outweighs public interest in expression. Applicant's s.8 damages claim dismissed (no bad faith/improper purpose). Application to dismiss against non‑defaulting defendants adjourne…
Source excerpt
The motion for a confidentiality order is denied because the applicant failed to satisfy the Sherman Estate three-step test: there was no evidence that court openness posed a serious risk to an important public interest, no necessity shown that alternative measures would not prevent any risk, and no proportionality analysis supported restricting openness; accordingly the prothonotary's interim confidentiality order is rescinded.
Source excerpt
The court refused to order disclosure of confidential source identities in an anti-SLAPP defamation application, finding disclosure unnecessary and overly prejudicial.
The court held that the identities of Persons D, E and F must remain redacted because disclosure would pose a serious risk to the important public interest in protecting the reputational and dignity interests of legal professionals (their biographical core) and no reasonable alternative would prevent that risk; conversely the identity of Person P (police officer) is peripheral and its disclosure does not meet the Sherman Estate threshold and therefore must be released.
Source excerpt
The motion judge did not err: the appellant failed to establish grounds to believe the action had substantial merit or that the respondents had no valid defences, and the harm alleged was not sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting the Expression under s.137.1; Burjoski did not alter the Pointes framework.
Source excerpt
Defamation appeal about special damages for lost employment opportunity and mitigation. The Court upheld the general-damages reduction, increased special damages, and applied s. 11 of the Libel and Slander Act.
A Charter breach of the applicant's fair trial rights cannot be found prospectively on the basis of the impugned social media posts before jury selection; the application is premature as the capacity to empanel an impartial jury must be assessed at voir dire, but the court may grant non-Charter prospective remedies including strengthening challenge for cause questions, directing police to seek removal of offending material, and excluding identified individuals from attending under s.486(1); a broad prohibition on family members publishing is overbroad and unjustified.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed applications for publication bans and sealing orders over sentencing materials, applying the Sherman Estate test and granting public access subject to limited redaction.
Explore more
