Constance Olsheski

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their action for defamation and intentional interference with economic relations against the respondents under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The motion judge had found the pleadings lacked sufficient material facts to establish that the respondents acted in concert with the author of the defamatory emails.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that when the amended statement of claim was read generously alongside the particulars and the incorporated emails, sufficient material facts were pleaded to disclose reasonable causes of action.

The order dismissing the action was set aside, and the appellants were granted leave to amend their pleadings.

Following a successful motion by certain defendants, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The court exercised its discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and considered the principles governing reasonable costs, including the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the guidance from appellate jurisprudence.

Although the successful defendants sought recovery based on extensive hours claimed for research and preparation, the court found portions of the time claimed excessive.

Considering the moderate complexity of the issues, the conduct of the parties, and prior settlement offers, the court fixed a reduced but reasonable partial indemnity costs award.

The moving defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the amended statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs alleged defamation and intentional interference with economic relations arising primarily from emails authored by another defendant.

The court held that the pleadings contained no material facts linking the moving defendants to the allegedly defamatory statements or establishing that they acted in concert or through an agency relationship with the author of the emails.

The pleadings also failed to properly particularize the alleged tort of intentional interference with economic relations or inducement of breach of contract.

The action against the moving defendants was dismissed.