court of appeal for ontario - academicfreedom.ca

More documents

Recommendations

Info

May 9 2012 1:22P1\4 Diffusds : le 9 mai 2012 No. 1 695 P. 14/14 nEfnnfNCE : Sr Lewis c Rancoutr,z}Lz ONCS 2519 NUMfRO DE DOSSIER DU GREI'FE I I I.51657 DATE t 2012105109 ENTRE : COUR SUPNRIDURI DD JUSTICf, M'JOANNE ST, LEWIS -et- DENIS RANCOURT DE L'ONTARIO MOTIFS DE DfCISION Demanderesse DCfcndeur Le juge R. Smith
jav. 9 2012 l:19PM Iro. 1695 P 2/14 BETWf,ENI OANNE ST. LEWIS '.and- DENIS RANCOURT CITATION: St. Lewis v. Rancourt.2012 ONSC 251! COURT FILE NO.: I l-5 I6sT DATE:2012105toq ONTARIO SUPDRIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Plaintiff Defendan: Richard G. Deu'dcn. for the Plaintiff Denis Rancourt, for the Deferrdant JNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA Petel K, Doody, fbr the University of Ottawa R. SMITH.I. Non Party Participant REASONS FOR DICISIOI\ IIEARD: March 28.2012 "ll Derris Rancourt ("Rancourt") is a former professor at the University of Ottawa who publishes a blog. He is being sued by the plaintiff, Joanne St. Lewis ("St. Lewis"), fot libel for staternents he made in his blog, criticizing the University of Unawa 12) St. Lewis is also a professor at the Universiiy of Ottawa who plepared a r€port which concluded that therr was no systcmic racism in the Univcrsity of Ottawa's treatment of visible mrnority students. Her legal fees for her libel action against Rancourt ale being paid by the UniversiW of Onawa ("University"), which Rancourt alleges constifute$ champerty, t3] Rancourl seeks leave to appeal the decision of Beaudoin J,, actrng as a case managemeni judge, wherein he refused to allow hirn to bring a motion (the open court motion) to allow members of the public to attcnd the cross-cxaminations on affidavits that were filed in his champerty motion. t4] In his oral reasons, Beaudoin J. refirsed to allow Rancourt to bring a motion to permit members of the public to attend the cross-examinatron on affidavits because he held that tire
Page 1 and 2:
BETWEEN: Introduction ONTARIO SUPER
Page 3 and 4: Costs should not be awarded to the
Page 5 and 6: Order requested 22. The Defendant r
Page 7 and 8: TAB 1
Page 9 and 10: ancourtlibelcasecomment http://civi
Page 11 and 12: - .1 ''l APPEARANCES: on Mr. R. Dea
Page 13 and 14: pornt. 68. Submissions - Mr L-/CClI
Page 15 and 16: 10 rul ,tl '"1 I .^l t 93. Submissr
Page 17 and 18: 136. Reasons for Decision - Master
Page 19 and 20: TAB 3
Page 21 and 22: [6] When Hilltop learned of the tra
Page 23 and 24: [19] On June 20, 2002 Greer J. gave
Page 25 and 26: [201] If I am wrong in my analysis
Page 27 and 28: $2,366,350.00 mortgage against the
Page 29 and 30: the earlier action; (c) the cause o
Page 33 and 34: (i) any other matter relevant to th
Page 35 and 36: COSTS ON SETTLEMENT 57.04 Where a p
Page 39 and 40: - 2 - Indian Band, and David Anthon
Page 41 and 42: - 21 - 20 In the usual case, costs
Page 43 and 44: - 23 - 24 Similarly, in Skidmore v.
Page 45 and 46: - 25 - treated as an unlimited sour
Page 49 and 50: May. 9. 2012 l:2lPl\4 No. 1695 P. 9
Page 51 and 52: Mlay, 9 2012 l:2lPl\4 No, 1695 P 11
Page 53: lvlay. 9, 2012 1r22Pl\4 No. 1695 P
Page 57 and 58: ,v1ay, 9. 2012 l:19PM No, 1695 P 4/
Page 59 and 60: May, 9. 2012 l:20P[1 No, 1695 P 6/
Page 63 and 64: NAME OF WITNESS: MR. ALLAN ROCK (i)
Page 65 and 66: 1 A. I've answered your question. 2
Page 67 and 68: 1 A. No. 2 186 Q. None? 3 A. No. 4
Page 71 and 72: constitute an improper motive or of
Page 73 and 74: Class Proceedings Act. In these ins
Page 77 and 78: Statute or Rule Governing Place of
show all

court of appeal for ontario - academicfreedom.ca

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?