In a defamation action arising from blog posts criticizing the plaintiff’s report on systemic racism at a university, the defendant brought a motion addressing refusals made during cross‑examination on a champerty and maintenance motion.
The defendant argued that the university’s agreement to fund the plaintiff’s legal fees constituted champerty and maintenance and sought answers to questions concerning the plaintiff’s academic background, financial situation, selection of counsel, and communications with the university.
The court held that most of the questions were irrelevant to the champerty motion because the university had admitted it agreed to fund the litigation and the details sought did not assist in determining whether the arrangement involved improper intermeddling or profit‑sharing.
The court also rejected an attempt to introduce expert opinion evidence regarding email communications as irrelevant and unnecessary.
The refusals were largely upheld and a request to strike re‑examination evidence was denied.
