Alison B. Woodbury

The appellants, defendants in a libel action, sought a stay of proceedings or security for costs after one of the plaintiffs disappeared with unpaid costs orders.

The motion judge denied the stay but ordered the remaining plaintiffs to post security for costs under rule 56.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Divisional Court set aside the order, holding that the Libel and Slander Act exclusively governed security for costs in such actions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the Act and the Rules can co-exist, the motion judge erred in applying rule 56.09 because no relief was being granted to the plaintiffs to which a security term could attach.

The appellants, who are police officers, brought a defamation action against the Toronto Star regarding articles about systemic racism and racial profiling by the Toronto Police.

The motions judge struck the claim, finding it plain and obvious that the articles could not reasonably be understood to refer to the appellants as individuals.

The Court of Appeal agreed, noting that defamation is a personal tort and the articles used general language without identifying any particular officer.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant in a libel action challenged the refusal to strike a statement of defence that denied the pleaded defamatory meaning and asserted a different defamatory meaning said to be true.

The Court of Appeal adopted the Divisional Court's reasoning that, under the modern rule, a defendant in a libel action may plead any defamatory meaning the words are capable of bearing and may justify that meaning or plead fair comment on a matter of public interest.

Finding no basis for appellate intervention, the court dismissed the appeal and fixed costs in favour of the respondents.