John Weisdorf

The appellant abandoned his conviction appeal and sought leave to appeal his sentence of one year for fraud and forgery plus three years probation.

He requested a variation to an intermittent sentence of 90 days to allow him to earn money for restitution.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence imposed by the trial judge was within the range and not unfit, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his defamation claim arising from statements made in a closed internet group.

The trial judge dismissed the claim on his own initiative based on the unpleaded defence of qualified privilege, without giving the appellant an opportunity to respond or call evidence of malice.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that relying on an unpleaded defence without affording the parties an opportunity to be heard constituted a denial of natural justice.

A new trial was ordered, as the issues of whether the statements were published and whether the appellant was a trespasser required a full factual record.