N. Colin Dougan

L'appelante a interjeté appel du rejet de son action en diffamation à la Cour des petites créances.

Elle alléguait que l'intimée avait tenu des propos diffamatoires à son égard lors d'une évaluation de rendement et à deux de ses connaissances qui enquêtaient sous un faux prétexte.

La Cour divisionnaire a confirmé que le juge de première instance n'a pas erré en concluant que les deux connaissances agissaient comme agents de l'appelante, ce qui annulait la publication à des tierces parties.

De plus, le refus d'accorder un ajournement pour faire entendre un technicien audio constituait un exercice raisonnable de la discrétion judiciaire.

L'appel a été rejeté.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her Small Claims Court action for defamation against the respondent, who had appraised her performance as a teacher's aide.

The appellant alleged the respondent made defamatory statements to her husband and an acquaintance who had contacted the respondent under false pretenses to elicit information.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the husband and acquaintance acted as the appellant's agents, meaning there was no publication to a third party in law.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's refusal to grant an adjournment to call an audio technician, nor in his refusal to infer publication to other school boards based on the appellant's lack of job offers.