Denis Grigoras

The parties jointly moved for determination of a question of law by way of a special case in a defamation action arising from statements made to police.

They sought a ruling on whether reports to law enforcement alleging criminal activity are protected by absolute privilege rather than qualified privilege.

The motion judge held that the prerequisites in r. 22.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure were not met because no relevant jurisprudential conflict was identified and the authorities said to be challenged did not conclusively and indistinguishably determine the issue.

In any event, the court would have declined to exercise its discretion because the proceeding lacked the exceptional features justifying first-instance resort to the Court of Appeal and the agreed facts may have been insufficient.

The r. 22 motion was dismissed without costs.

The plaintiffs, a former university professor and his spouse, sued the CBC for defamation and negligence seeking $10.35 million in damages over news reports regarding the professor's termination following an investigation into sexual harassment allegations.

The CBC brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the reporting concerned a matter of public interest, the CBC had valid defences of responsible communication, justification, and fair comment, and the public interest in protecting the expression outweighed the harm to the plaintiffs.

The action was dismissed with full indemnity costs awarded to the CBC.

The defendants brought a motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's action for defamation and intentional interference with economic relations.

The action arose from tweets and newspaper comments made by the defendants criticizing the plaintiff nursing home's COVID-19 policies and care of a resident.

The court found the expression related to a matter of public interest.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that its claim had substantial merit and that the defendants had no valid defences.

Furthermore, the court held that the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression substantially outweighed any minimal harm suffered by the plaintiff.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The appellant, Timothy Rodger, appealed an order dismissing his action for delay under Rule 24.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action, a negligence claim against London Hydro Inc., had seen no steps taken for over four years after examinations for discovery.

The motion judge dismissed the action, citing the passage of over five years since commencement, the lack of an affidavit explaining the delay, and the presumption of prejudice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in the exercise of discretion to dismiss the action and deny a further adjournment.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.