David Potts

The appellants appealed an order finding that a letter sent by the respondent prior to litigation was protected by absolute privilege.

The appellants argued that the prospect of litigation was too remote at the time the letter was sent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that the letter was a preparatory step taken with a view to judicial proceedings and therefore fell within the confines of absolute privilege.

The respondent successfully sued the appellant for workplace defamation, being awarded damages and costs at trial.

On appeal, the appellant argued for the first time that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute arose in a unionized workplace governed by a collective agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Superior Court had concurrent jurisdiction and that the jurisdictional objection was raised too late to be entertained.

The appeal regarding costs was also dismissed.