COURT FILE NO.: 563/01

DATE: 20031110

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

mcrae, dunnet and jennings jj.

B E T W E E N:

JOE PACHECO o/a PACHECO CLEANERS

Plaintiff (Respondent)

• and -

ANGELO DERANGO

Defendant (Appellant)

James C. Morton, for the Plaintiff (Respondent)

Antonio Conte, for the Defendant (Appellant)

HEARD: November 10, 2003

MCRAE J.: (Orally)

1In this appeal the trial Judge found as a fact that the defamatory words were spoken by the respondent Pacheco and there was evidence to support that finding. The principle issue on the appeal is whether the defamatory words were spoken in a situation of qualified privilege.

2The trial Judge found:

“While Mr. DeRango’s communication of his suspicions to the police was privileged, the communication to Mr. Celli was not. This is not a situation where Mr. DeRango can claim the defence of qualified privilege in the communication to Mr. Celli. For qualified privilege to arise, there must be a reciprocal interest in the communication and receipt of the information – for example, when an employer passes information to an employee in order to protect a business interest (Pleau v. Simpsons-Sears Ltd. (1977), 15 O.R. (2d) 436 (C.A.)). Mr. Celli, whose job was lead hand/sheet metal mechanic, had no particular interest in having such information about Mr. Pacheco, the cleaner. Therefore, the defence of qualified privilege is not available here.”

3We are unable to find that her reasons were clearly wrong in this regard and for those reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

4The appeal book will read as follows: “The appeal is dismissed. Costs fixed at $2,000 to the respondent.”

MCRAE J.

DUNNET J.

JENNINGS J.

Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 10, 2003

Date Release: December 3, 2003

COURT FILE NO.: 563/01

DATE: 20031110

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

mcrae, dunnet and jennings jj.