Cory A. Gilmore

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing several defamation claims arising from a condominium requisition notice seeking his removal as president of the condominium board.

The appellate court found that the impugned words stating that the appellant failed to act honestly and in good faith were capable of being defamatory and that certain respondents had participated in publication of the material.

However, the court held that the respondents established the defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege in the condominium governance context.

The evidence demonstrated a factual foundation for the statements relating to the appellant’s conduct as president.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs in a medical negligence action brought a motion under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking a determination before trial of whether the defendant could summons plaintiffs’ counsel to testify and produce documents related to communications with the plaintiff.

The defendant argued the evidence was relevant to the issue of discoverability in relation to a limitations defence.

The court held that the motion did not raise a question of law in a pleading and therefore was not properly brought under Rule 21.

Issues concerning witness summonses, privilege, waiver, and the admissibility of documents are evidentiary matters best decided by the trial judge.

Discoverability is a fact-based analysis and does not constitute a pure question of law suitable for pre‑trial determination under Rule 21.

A costs decision following a summary judgment motion concerning the priority of motor vehicle liability insurance coverage under s. 277 of the Insurance Act.

The moving parties sought full indemnity costs exceeding $39,000, arguing that where insurers share a duty to defend, equitable principles require full reimbursement of defence costs.

The third party insurer opposed, submitting the dispute concerned priority of coverage rather than the existence of a duty to defend, and that only modest partial indemnity costs should be awarded.

The court held that priority disputes between insurers do not give rise to the same contractual obligation to fully indemnify defence costs as duty-to-defend cases.

Considering delay in bringing the motion and the unsettled nature of the law, the court awarded reduced costs.

The Crown applied for a ruling that a criminal trial had commenced and that the accused had absconded, seeking authorization to continue the proceedings in the accused’s absence under ss. 475 and 598 of the Criminal Code.

The accused, charged with large-scale tax fraud involving thousands of income tax returns and millions of dollars in understated tax liability, failed to appear for scheduled trial proceedings despite prior compliance with court appearances.

The court found that the accused had deliberately absconded and that the trial had commenced when pre-trial motions were heard following the preferring of the indictment.

The court further held that the accused had waived her election for a jury trial by failing to appear without legitimate excuse.

However, the court concluded that it was not yet in the interests of justice to proceed with the trial in the accused’s absence and adjourned the Crown’s application to allow further efforts to locate the accused.