Asher Honickman was successful in defending a high-profile defamation action brought by Richard Warman against his clients, Jonathan Kay and Barbara Kay. Mr. Warman appealed and the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal. The case dealt with an interesting aspect of defamation law - whether a statement made about a corporation can ever be "of and concerning" a director of the corporation. The trial judge found that the Kays' statements concerned the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, not the plaintiff who is a director of CAHN. The Divisional Court agreed.
Asher Honickman was successful on behalf of the defendants in getting the plaintiff's claim dismissed at a status hearing motion. The plaintiff appealed and Asher Honickman was again successful on behalf of his clients in getting the appeal dismissed. The decision is an important reminder that access to justice is a two-way street. Timelines should not be applied rigidly, but if they are not enforced in a principled manner, defendants are not able to get on with their lives, and the public no longer has access to a functional judicial system.
Asher Honickman was successful on behalf of their client, a Toronto resident, in quashing the decision of Toronto City Council to send up to $100,000 to litigants in the Province of Quebec. The decision reaffirmed that all municipal actions must have a municipal purpose.
Asher Honickman brought an urgent application on behalf of his client, Ghada Melek, to compel the Conservative Party of Canada to certify Ms. Melek as a nominee for the National Council election. The court agreed Ms. Melek should never have been disallowed from running and ordered that she be placed on the ballot.
Hillier v. Ontario (2019 - 2021)
Asher Honickman represented MPP Randy Hillier in his challenge to Ontario’s Election Finances Act. Mr. Hillier challenged the Act on the basis that it discriminates against Independent (non-party affiliated) candidates. Very shortly before the court hearing, the Ontario government tabled and passed new legislation to put Independent MPPs like Mr. Hillier on a more equal footing.
You can learn more about Mr. Hillier's victory here:
Global News story.
Asher Honickman was successful in resisting the defendants’ summary judgment motion to dismiss the claim as being out of time. The plaintiff delivered its invoices approximately 3.5 years before suing, but the court agreed that there were complex issues of fact that required a trial.
Jordan Honickman Barristers once against appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada as co-counsel for Advocates for the Rule of Law. The case dealt with the proper interpretation of the Constitution Act, 1867 and the division of powers between Parliament and the provincial legislatures. At the Alberta Court of Appeal, the majority had relied on Asher Honickman's peer-reviewed article on the division of powers.
Asher Honickman appeared at the Supreme Court of Canada as one of three lawyers acting on behalf of the intervenor Advocates for the Rule of Law. Asher founded this organization in 2014 and it has since become a registered charity.
Rockford v. Haque, 2019 ONSC 474 (CanLII)
Asher Honickman acted for the plaintiff and was successful in defeating the defendant’s summary judgment motion. The defendant had taken the position that the plaintiff was out of time to bring her lawsuit (she was involved in an accident in 2009 but did not sue until 2014). Asher was successful in demonstrating to the court that she could not have known that she was seriously and permanently injured until several years after the accident. Her lawsuit was therefore allowed to proceed.
Alford v. Law Society of Upper Canada (2017 – 2020)
Asher Honickman represented Professor Ryan Alford and lawyer Murray Klippenstein in a constitutional challenge to a new Law Society rule. The Law Society eventually repealed the rule that was being challenged.
You can read more about the case
here.
