Canadian Anti-Hate Network @antihateca Jan 28, 2025:
UPDATE: Remnants of the so-called Freedom Convoy that tried to sue us now owe us almost $50,000 in costs after their case was dismissed. They also spent over $95,000 on their own legal expenses to bring their conspiracy theories to court and have them completely dismissed.
Canadian Anti-Hate Network @antihateca:
These convoy remnants alleged a wide ranging conspiracy in which CAHN lied about and defamed the convoy so that the government could enact the Emergencies Act. Apparently the police and banks were in on it too. It was nonsense – and it cost them.
From antihate.ca
DECISION: https://canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc
…
costs endorsement on s. 137.1 motion
RYAN BELL j.
Overview
[1] On September 27, 2024, I released my reasons for decision granting the motion of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network and Bernie Farber (the CAHN defendants) under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 and dismissing the action against them: Cornell v. Trudeau, 2024 ONSC 5343.
[2] The CAHN defendants request costs of the action and the motion in the amount of $49,319.13 on a full indemnity basis.
[3] The plaintiffs submit that an award of full indemnity costs is not appropriate in the circumstances and that the costs requested are neither fair nor reasonable. The plaintiffs submit that a costs award of $10,000 would fall within a “fair range.”[1] The plaintiffs’ bill of costs reflects full indemnity fees and disbursements in the amount of $95,881.29.
[4] For the following reasons, I conclude that the CAHN defendants are entitled to their costs on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $49,319.13, all-inclusive.
Discussion
(i) Scale of costs
[5] When an action is dismissed under s. 137.1, the statutory presumption is that the successful moving party will be awarded costs on a full indemnity basis unless the judge determines that such an award is not appropriate: CJA, s. 137.1(7); Levant v. DeMelle, 2022 ONCA 79, at para. 75. The full indemnity starting point for the assessment of costs established by s. 137.1(7) is intended to disincentivize “this kind of litigation” and is not predicated on the basis upon which the defendant succeeds on the motion: Fortress Real Developments Inc. v. Rabidoux, 2018 ONCA686, at paras. 66, 71. The plaintiffs have the burden to demonstrate why a departure from the full indemnity presumption is appropriate.
[6] The plaintiffs have not identified any factors that would justify departing from the statutory presumption of full indemnity costs. “Countervailing determinations” on some of the factors to be considered under s. 137.1 do not detract from the full indemnity presumption: Levant, at para. 77. In any event, all the s. 137.1 considerations were determined in favour of the CAHN defendants. The fact that I did not award damages does not detract from the full indemnity presumption.
[7] The plaintiffs submit that “especially where an action is undertaken in the public interest, [that factor] can and should weigh against an award of full indemnity costs.” The plaintiffs rely on Rainbow Alliance, at paras. 17-18. However, in Rainbow Alliance, the motion judge dismissed the anti-SLAPP motion, allowing the action to continue. In this case, I found the action against the CAHN defendants “is precisely the type of claim that s. 137.1 is intended to weed out”: Cornell, at para. 63.
[8] The plaintiffs have not persuaded me that a costs award on a full indemnity basis is not appropriate in the circumstances.
(ii) Quantum of costs
[9] When determining the quantum of costs under s. 137.1(7), there remains an obligation on the motion judge to undertake the same type of analysis that is required when fixing costs in any other context. As explained by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in United Soils Management Ltd. v. Mohammed, 2019 ONCA 128, at para. 42,
Just because the award is on a full indemnity basis does not mean that the successful party is entitled to whatever costs were incurred. The quantum must still be fair and reasonable for what was involved in the particular proceeding: Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario. The award must also be proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues, and to the amount involved, in the proceeding: see r. 1.04(1.1). [citations omitted][2]
[10] The plaintiffs rely on the Court of Appeal’s comments in Park Lawn Corporation v. Kahu Capital Partners Ltd., 2023 ONCA 129: “With this direction in mind [that the motion is a screening procedure and that at the weighing exercise, a technical, granular analysis is not required] and recognizing that an anti-SLAPP motion is meant to be efficient and economical, I would suggest that, as a guideline, the costs of such a motion should not generally exceed $50,000 on a full indemnity basis.” But in the same sentence, the Court of Appeal went on to recognize that “there will be exceptions and motion judges always have the power to award less, more or nothing as they see fit in the circumstances of each case”: Park Lawn, at para. 39. The amount the CAHN defendants seek in full indemnity costs is less than the $50,000 guideline set out in Park Lawn.
[11] The plaintiffs claimed a total of $44,000,000, on a joint and several basis, against the defendants, including the CAHN defendants. This litigation is, in a word, “massive.”[3] In addition to the CAHN defendants, the named defendants include government actors, government agencies, police defendants, and various financial institutions. The motion addressed important issues. In addition to the complexity inherent in a motion brought under s. 137.1 of the CJA,the plaintiffs sought to “look past” the statement of claim to allegations set out in the affidavit of Mr. Gircys. Out of an abundance of caution, the CAHN defendants addressed those allegations in their factum. The plaintiffs cross-examined Mr. Farber and Mr. Warman on their affidavits. While the plaintiffs were entitled to do so, the CAHN defendants incurred costs as a result.
[12] The CAHN defendants offered to settle the motion on June 11, 2024, by requesting the payment of $10,000 (the costs of preparing the notice of motion and affidavits) and the dismissal of the action against them. Although the offer is not r. 49 compliant, it is an additional factor that I have considered in assessing whether the costs requested are fair and reasonable. The plaintiffs’ offer to settle (which involved the dismissal of certain aspects of the claim against the CAHN defendants but which provided that the claim in civil conspiracy would survive and that no costs would be paid by the plaintiffs) does not impact my analysis of the costs to be awarded to the CAHN defendants.
[13] The plaintiffs do not take issue with the hourly rates of legal counsel for the CAHN defendants. I find the hourly rates are reasonable, having regard to their years of experience. The plaintiffs submit that it is difficult to assess the reasonableness of the fees of the CAHN defendants because the bill of costs refers to 137.5 cumulative hours spent by two lawyers, one law clerk, and one articling student. While it would have been preferable for the CAHN defendants’ bill of costs to reflect the division of work undertaken, I note that the plaintiffs’ bill of costs adopts the same “cumulative” approach. In any event, the costs incurred by the CAHN defendants would have been well within the reasonable expectation of the plaintiffs, having regard to their own costs of the motion in the amount of $95,881.29.
Conclusion
[14] Taking into consideration all the above, the factors set out in r. 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, I find that $49,319.13, all-inclusive is a fair, reasonable, and proportionate award for the motion and the action. This amount is to be paid by the plaintiffs to the CAHN defendants within 30 days.
Justice R. Ryan Bell
Released: January 27, 2025
CITATION: Cornell v. Trudeau, 2025 ONSC 543
COURT FILE NO.: CV-24-00095074-0000
DATE: 20250127
***
Freedom Convoy Conspiracy Theory Kicked Out of Court, The $44 million lawsuit against the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, the government, and banks failed to show any evidence of CAHN involvement in a (non-existent) wide-ranging conspiracy by Evan Balgord, October 4, 2024, Canadian Anti-Hate Network
Last spring, twenty so-called “Freedom Convoy” supporters or family members teamed up to prove that there had been a secret plan to discredit the convoy, justify the Emergencies Act, and have their bank accounts frozen. They were going to drag their enemies to court and take us all down.
According to their lawsuit, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network’s (CAHN) role in this conspiracy was to lie about the convoy and paint everyone involved as dangerous, far-right extremists. Never mind that we were simply watching the organizers, collecting what they were saying, and reporting it. Never mind that all our work could be verified and repeated.
We wanted to put an end to this disinformation quickly and definitively, so we filed a motion to dismiss the bogus lawsuit as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP).
The lawsuit claimed that we defamed each of the 20 plaintiffs, even though we only knew one of them, and only by reputation. Tom Quiggin, who attached himself to this convoy group, is a “self-described researcher” who deals in Islamophobic conspiracy theories.
The government’s controversial invocation of the Emergencies Act prompted law enforcement to end the month-long convoy protest, and caused banks to temporarily freeze the bank accounts of several participants.
The convoy plaintiffs claimed that there was a conspiracy between us, the government, politicians, as well as various banks and credit unions in the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
“The plaintiffs plead the CAHN defendants provided false information to other defendants and media organizations designed to harm the plaintiffs,” the decision reads. “The plaintiffs also plead the CAHN defendants or their proxies provided false or highly exaggerated information to the various Crown defendants and police defendants in support of the invocation of the Emergencies Act and the enactment of the impugned regulations.”
Their lawsuit, however, didn’t provide any specific statements or articles by CAHN that would be “defamatory” to back up their claims. When they dismissed the case, the Ontario Superior court judge ruled that the claims of defamation against CAHN were made up of “only several bald allegations that amount to no more than a fishing expedition.”
“The plaintiffs have not met their burden under the merits-based hurdle or under the public interest hurdle. The action against the CAHN defendants is dismissed, with costs,” Justice Robyn Ryan Bell wrote in her decision.
In other words, the convoy supporters wanted their conspiracy theories to be true but failed to provide any evidence. Case dismissed.
We would like to thank our lawyers Jeff Saikaley and Albert Brunet from Caza Saikaley for their diligence and efficacy.