The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing their motion to strike portions of a reply in a defamation action.
The underlying action alleged defamatory statements and economic interference arising from publications about forestry practices in the Canadian boreal forest.
The reply pleading introduced allegations concerning a decades-long history of alleged unlawful campaigns by environmental organizations unrelated to the pleaded claim.
The court held there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge’s order permitting the expanded reply because it risked significantly broadening the scope of the litigation beyond the pleaded dispute.
Leave to appeal was granted given the importance of defining the permissible scope of reply pleadings and the risk of prejudice, delay, and unnecessary litigation costs.
