In Miranda v. Balita Media Inc., the Court upheld the trial judge’s finding that the 2022 publications were defamatory and confirmed that 2020 defamatory articles that could not be sued upon because those claims were statute-barred could be considered for context, even if there was no liability for that defamation. It declined to interfere with the damages award. However, the Court held that the permanent injunction was overly broad and insufficiently defined, set it aside, and remitted the rewording of the injuction to the Superior Court if the parties could not agree on it.
R (H.C.) v. Ontario Special Education Tribunal arose from a father’s administrative challenge of his special needs child’s placement with the Toronto District School Board. The Court dismissed the father’s motion seeking reconsideration of a prior decision denying a stay of Divisional Court proceedings, holding that the motion was moot because the Divisional Court had already granted the Ontario Special Education Tribunal’s requested publication ban and anonymization order, thereby eliminating any live controversy on the motion to reconsider the refusal to grant the stay. Moreover, the there was no issue of public importance to be determined on the reconsideration motion.
In MacRae v. Cassan, 2026 ONCA 242, R.M., a lawyer whose license was suspended after the respondent lawyers reported concerns about his fitness to practice to the Law Society of Ontario, sued for damages alleging causes of action including intentional interference with business relations, negligence and defamation. The Regional Senior Justice dismissed his action under Rule 2.1.01 as a collateral attack on the Law Society’s investigation. R.M. was granted an extension to appeal the RSJ’s order.
In Head v. 859530 Ontario Inc., the Court upheld certification of causation and damages as common issues in a COVID-19 class action against a long-term care facility. The Court confirmed that a workable methodology for causation was sufficient at the certification stage and any concerns about the quantification of punitive damages could be addressed by sequencing them after compensatory damages were determined. The Court declined to interfere with the motion judge’s discretionary costs award.
In Stingelin Estate v. Woods, the Court upheld a summary judgment dismissal, finding that the respondent lawyer hired to prepare a will owed no duty of care or fiduciary duty to the appellant. The appellant was neither a client of the lawyer nor a beneficiary or intended beneficiary under the will and therefore the lawyer owed him no duty of care or fiduciary duty.
In Bensen v. Bensen, the Court determined there was no basis to interfere with the application judge’s factual findings that there was no breach of undertaking, no oppression, and no basis to remove a trustee where the impugned conduct was found to benefit the corporation and trust.
John Polyzogopoulos
Blaney McMurtry LLP
416.593.2953 Email