3 total
The Court of Appeal upheld the summary dismissal of a defamation action against a union, finding the communications were protected by qualified privilege.
The appellant, Barry Weisleder, appealed a summary judgment dismissing his defamation action against the respondent union.
The motion judge had found the allegedly defamatory speech was protected by qualified privilege and that malice was not established.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision, upholding the finding of qualified privilege and the absence of malice, noting that the ample evidentiary record allowed for a summary judgment decision on malice.
The appeal was dismissed.
Defamation claim dismissed on summary judgment as statements in union pamphlet were protected by qualified privilege.
The defendant union brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation claim on the basis of qualified privilege.
The plaintiff, a former union local president, alleged that statements made in a pamphlet distributed at an annual general meeting were defamatory.
The court found that the statements were made on an occasion of qualified privilege, as the union executive had a duty to respond to the plaintiff's ongoing criticisms and inform members of the local's history.
The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of express malice to defeat the privilege, and granted the summary judgment motion.
Appeal dismissed; striking pleadings for failing to produce affidavit of documents upheld despite alleged procedural irregularity.
The appellants appealed an order striking their statement of defence and counterclaim for failing to produce an affidavit of documents.
They argued the motion judge lacked jurisdiction because the order was purportedly made under Rule 76, despite the litigation continuing under the ordinary procedure.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the order did not refer to Rule 76, and even if it had, it would be a mere technical irregularity that did not deprive the motion judge of jurisdiction.
