Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The plaintiff moved to strike the defendant's statement of defence for failure to pay two outstanding costs orders totalling $22,250.
• Both costs orders arose from a dismissed anti-SLAPP motion and a subsequently dismissed appeal extension application.
• Jake Pollock claimed impecuniosity as justification for non-payment but failed to provide full and frank financial disclosure.
• His social media activity — including casino patronage, paid collaborations, and campaign spending — was inconsistent with his claimed financial hardship.
• Raising impecuniosity for the first time after the costs orders were made, without having raised it in prior submissions, constituted a collateral attack on those orders.
• Rather than immediately striking the defence, the court balanced competing interests by granting Pollock 60 days to pay in full, failing which the plaintiff may bring a motion to strike without notice.

Facts of the case

Christina Coletti, operating under the name Scenes From Dinner, ran an Instagram account, @scenesfromdinner, through which she promoted local food businesses. She offered to feature croissants from Kings Bakeshop, operated by Chelsea Hanna Zammit (also known as Chelsea Froese), on her account, mistakenly assuming the products would be provided free of charge. When Zammit demanded payment, a dispute arose, and Coletti ultimately paid. Zammit subsequently discovered that her prior promotions had been removed from @scenesfromdinner and concluded that Coletti had deleted them. Zammit posted a public Instagram story about the dispute without naming Coletti directly.

Jake Pollock, also known as Jake Kelza, was an Instagram influencer who operated the accounts @MadeinYQG and @JakeinYQG/@JakeKelza. He observed Zammit's story, became involved, and escalated the matter. Pollock created a new Instagram account, @viewsfromsupper, which he used to mock Coletti's account, call her names, and allege that she had engaged in inappropriate conduct. Coletti commenced an action against Pollock, Zammit, and 2645706 Ontario Limited o/a Kings Bakeshop, claiming $1,000,000 in damages for defamation and $250,000 in punitive damages.

Procedural background and rules at issue

The defendants brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, seeking to have the claim dismissed as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). Justice Bezaire dismissed that motion on July 11, 2025, finding that the defendants' expressions were not related to a matter of public interest and instead reflected "a bitter private dispute." This ruling generated the first costs order: Bezaire J. required the defendants to pay Coletti $17,250 in costs. The defendants then sought to appeal, applying to the Ontario Court of Appeal for an extension of time to do so. That application was dismissed by Rouleau J.A. on March 30, 2026, resulting in a second costs order requiring the defendants to pay $5,000. No payments were made on either order.

The current motion was brought under rr. 57.03(2) and 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. Rule 57.03(2) allows the court to strike a party's defence where that party fails to pay costs as required. Rule 60.12 similarly permits the court to strike a defence where a party fails to comply with an interlocutory order. Prior to this motion, on May 26, 2026, Justice Macfarlane struck the defences of Zammit and the corporate defendant for failing to attend, and adjourned the motion to allow Pollock time to file responding materials.

Court's reasoning and analysis

Justice Hebner applied the framework set out in Garrett v. Oldfield, 2016 ONCA 424, which requires the court to balance the competing interests of both parties and consider all relevant factors when deciding whether to strike a defence for non-payment of costs. The court also drew on the factors enumerated in Allen v. Kumar, 2022 ONSC 4223, which address, among other things, collateral attacks on prior orders, the cavalier disregard of costs obligations, the adequacy of financial disclosure, and the fairness of exempting impecunious litigants from enforcement.

Pollock argued financial hardship, citing health issues, unemployment, disability income capped at approximately $1,262 per month, and various personal setbacks. However, the court found his evidence insufficient. His tax returns showed income of $51,947 in 2023, $32,634 in 2024, and $15,335 in 2025. He provided only summary-level bank statements without transaction details and no credit report, statement of assets, or statement of debts. Applying the standard from Mositano v. Gordon, 2023 ONSC 5587, Justice Hebner found that Pollock had not met the high evidentiary burden required to establish genuine impecuniosity, which demands full and frank disclosure of income, assets, expenses, liabilities, and borrowing ability.

The court further noted that Pollock's social media activity was inconsistent with his claimed hardship. Posts documented regular visits to Casino Windsor as a Seven Star Diamond member of the Caesars Rewards loyalty program, attendance at the Windsor Filmfest, dining at restaurants, stays in AirBnBs, and accepted paid social media collaborations — all during the period of the litigation. He had also run a campaign for Windsor City Council in October 2025. The court found that this conduct demonstrated an ability to generate and spend funds that was irreconcilable with his stated financial position. Additionally, Justice Hebner observed that Pollock had failed to raise impecuniosity in his costs submissions before Bezaire J. — at a time when he was represented by counsel — making his subsequent reliance on it a collateral attack on the prior costs order. His initial promise to pay $1,750 followed by $300 per month, and later $240 per month, with nothing ultimately paid, further demonstrated a cavalier attitude toward the court's orders.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice Hebner declined to immediately strike Pollock's statement of defence, instead balancing both parties' interests by granting Pollock 60 days from the release of the ruling to pay the full outstanding costs of $22,250. If payment is not made within that period, the plaintiff, Christina Coletti, is at liberty to bring a motion to strike the defence without notice to Pollock. The court also awarded Coletti the costs of this motion fixed at $5,000 — separate from and in addition to the $22,250 already owing — noting that while the amounts sought were high for an ordinary motion, the materials were lengthy and the case law was thoroughly researched. The plaintiff was the successful party on the motion.