Darrell Lee Kloeze

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the defendant's successful motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim.

The defendant sought $1,000 in costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The self-represented plaintiff argued he should be relieved of costs as a "public interest litigant." The court found that the plaintiff's claim, which sought minimal damages for defamation against a judge and stemmed from private family law disputes, did not qualify as genuine public interest litigation.

Consequently, the court applied the usual rule that costs follow the event and ordered the plaintiff to pay $1,000 in costs to the defendant.

The plaintiff, Adan McIntosh, sued Justice Sharon Shore for defamation, alleging she disseminated defamatory remarks to judicial colleagues and included them in a Case History Report with intent to influence other judges.

Justice Shore moved to strike the statement of claim under Rules 21.01(1)(a) and (b) and 25.11(c), arguing judicial immunity and absolute privilege.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim was certain to fail due to Justice Shore's unanswerable defence of judicial immunity, as her actions were within her judicial capacity, even if an error of judgment.

The court also found that absolute privilege applied as the comments were directly connected to judicial proceedings.

The motion to strike was granted without leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement following its decision to partially allow an appeal and award damages to the appellant.

The appellant sought trial costs of $750,000 and prejudgment interest of over $2.3 million, compounded annually.

The respondent conceded entitlement to trial costs but argued for a lower amount due to the appellant's limited success and for a reduction in prejudgment interest due to an 18-year delay in prosecuting the claim, also opposing compounding.

The Court fixed trial costs at $475,000 and prejudgment interest at $600,000, denying compound interest and reducing the amount due to the unexplained and unreasonable delay.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order determining that claims for recovery of legal expenses incurred in connection with a coroner's inquest into the death of a family member were potentially recoverable under section 61(1) of the Family Law Act.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in answering the question of law under Rule 21.01(1)(a) without proper pleadings raising the issue.

The pleadings predated the inquest and contained no reference to legal expenses.

The motion judge's answer that the expenses were "potentially recoverable" if they qualified as pecuniary loss did not advance the litigation or satisfy the purposes of Rule 21.01(1)(a).

The appeal was allowed and the order set aside.