5 total
Security for costs under the Rules of Civil Procedure is available in defamation actions but was improperly ordered here.
The appellants, defendants in a libel action, sought a stay of proceedings or security for costs after one of the plaintiffs disappeared with unpaid costs orders.
The motion judge denied the stay but ordered the remaining plaintiffs to post security for costs under rule 56.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Divisional Court set aside the order, holding that the Libel and Slander Act exclusively governed security for costs in such actions.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the Act and the Rules can co-exist, the motion judge erred in applying rule 56.09 because no relief was being granted to the plaintiffs to which a security term could attach.
Defamation claim by police officers against newspaper dismissed as articles did not identify them individually.
The appellants, who are police officers, brought a defamation action against the Toronto Star regarding articles about systemic racism and racial profiling by the Toronto Police.
The motions judge struck the claim, finding it plain and obvious that the articles could not reasonably be understood to refer to the appellants as individuals.
The Court of Appeal agreed, noting that defamation is a personal tort and the articles used general language without identifying any particular officer.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
No costs awarded on successful appeal due to novel issue and appellants' conduct.
The successful appellants sought costs of their appeal and the application for leave to appeal.
The Divisional Court declined to award costs to either party.
The court noted that both parties contributed to the jurisdictional error below, the appeal raised a novel and complex issue regarding the interplay between the Libel and Slander Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the appellants' conduct throughout the proceedings justified the case management judge's initial concerns about abuse of process.
Security for costs in newspaper libel actions is governed by the Libel and Slander Act, not Rule 56.
The appellants, plaintiffs in a defamation action against a newspaper and others, appealed an order requiring them to post security for costs under Rule 56.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motions judge erred in law by not applying section 12 of the Libel and Slander Act.
The Court held that section 12 provides a specific, more onerous procedure for security for costs in libel actions involving newspapers, which takes precedence over the general provisions of Rule 56 pursuant to Rule 1.02(1)3.
Libel appeal dismissed; alternative defamatory meaning could be pleaded and justified.
The appellant in a libel action challenged the refusal to strike a statement of defence that denied the pleaded defamatory meaning and asserted a different defamatory meaning said to be true.
The Court of Appeal adopted the Divisional Court's reasoning that, under the modern rule, a defendant in a libel action may plead any defamatory meaning the words are capable of bearing and may justify that meaning or plead fair comment on a matter of public interest.
Finding no basis for appellate intervention, the court dismissed the appeal and fixed costs in favour of the respondents.
