Court File and Parties

CITATION: Grigonis v. Toronto Boardsailing Club, 2010 ONCA 651

DATE: 20101005

DOCKET: C51470

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Doherty, Feldman and Rouleau JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Alex Grigonis

Plaintiff (Appellant)

and

The Toronto Boardsailing Club, Roland Ujj and Reet Mae

Defendants (Respondents)

Counsel:

Alex Grigonis, appearing in person

Odette Soriano and Jean-Claude Killey, for the respondent, the Toronto Boardsailing Club

Luisa Ritacca, for the respondents, Ujj and Mae

Heard and orally released: October 1, 2010

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Spence of the Superior Court of Justice dated December 4, 2009.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This is an appeal from the order of the motion judge striking the appellant’s pleadings in their entirety and refusing leave to amend those proceedings. The allegations in the pleadings fall into one of three areas. We will address each area separately.

The New Allegations

[2] The appellant alleges that the pleadings support claims of assault, breach of contract and malicious prosecution. None of those matters was raised before the motion judge. It would be wrong to address them for the first time on appeal. In any event, none is adequately pleaded.

The Membership Refusal

[3] With respect to the claim based upon the refusal to renew the appellant’s membership in the respondent club, the appellant has pleaded only that his membership application was “unreasonably” and “without legal grounds” refused by the club. This allegation does not give rise to a cause of action in law.

The Defamation Claim

[4] This was the principal claim advanced in the statement of claim. We agree with one of the grounds on which the motion judge struck the pleadings. The defamation allegation was inadequately pleaded against all respondents given the required degree of specificity unique to defamation pleadings.

[5] The motion judge exercised his discretion against allowing the appellant leave to amend the claim. He did so having regard to the lengthy passage of time since the matter was instituted and particulars were first claimed, the number of exchanges between the parties in which the respondents sought particulars, and the absence of any proposed amended pleadings before the motion judge. We note that we also were not provided with any proposed amended pleading. In these circumstances, we cannot say that the motion judge erred in principle or acted unreasonably in the exercise of his discretion and see no basis upon which to interfere with the exercise of that discretion.

[6] The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent club in the amount of $5,000 and costs to the individual defendants in the amount of $4,000, both inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

“Doherty J.A.”

“K. Feldman J.A.”

“Paul Rouleau J.A.”