C.A. Painter

The court fixed partial indemnity costs following successful summary judgment motions.

The defendant's motion was unsuccessful, while the plaintiff's was successful, with findings that the defendant's words were untrue, unwithdrawn, and demonstrated malice.

The plaintiff sought elevated costs, citing the defendant's unreasonable conduct and bad faith, and more favourable settlement offers.

The court found no unreasonableness or bad faith in the defendant's cross-motion or delay, and the plaintiff's settlement offers were not Rule 49 compliant.

However, considering the defendant's demonstrated malice and failure to apologize, the court awarded reasonably generous partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, a former municipal councillor, sought damages for defamation against the defendant, a current municipal councillor, regarding statements made in an email.

Both parties moved for summary judgment.

The court found the defendant's statements, which alleged the plaintiff disclosed confidential information from a closed council session and acted with a conflict of interest, were defamatory, false, and malicious.

The court rejected the defendant's defences of qualified privilege and fair comment, finding no reciprocity or duty to communicate the defamatory information and that the statements were assertions of fact, not opinion.

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the defendant's cross-motion was dismissed.

General damages of $30,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.