COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
GABE SPOLETINI (Appellant) – and – MARIO G. RACCO (Respondent)
BEFORE:
WEILER, LASKIN and GOUDGE JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Yaroslav Mikitchook
for the appellant
Christopher Ashby
for the respondent
HEARD:
June 11, 2003
On appeal from the order of Justice Harriet E. Sachs of the Superior Court of Justice dated May 24, 2002.
E N D O R S E M E N T
Released Orally: June 11, 2003
1This appeal is essentially fact driven. There were two versions of what the appellant was alleged to have said. The trial judge preferred the evidence given by Ms. DiNovo as to what the appellant said and gave two reasons for doing so. The first was that Ms. DiNovo had recorded the essential components of what was said accurately at the time the comments were made and the second was that in a conversation with the city solicitor and city manager the appellant told them he had “information respecting a domestic court matter “ involving the respondent sometime in the past. Having regard to the high standard of deference owing to a trial judge’s findings of fact we cannot interfere: Housen v. Nikolaisen (2002) SCC 33.
2We see no basis for setting aside the legal conclusion flowing from that finding of fact, namely, that the words spoken left the clear inference that the respondent was someone who had been guilty of corrupt and criminal behaviour.
3The amount of damages is not in issue.
4The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent fixed in the amount of $3000 all inclusive.
“Karen M. Weiler J.A.”
“John Laskin J.A.”
“S. T. Goudge J.A.”