Court File and Parties
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 95/13
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
GIUSEPPE ALESSANDRO and LAW HELP LTD. Plaintiffs (Appellants)
– and –
ANDREW SMITH and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO Defendants (Respondents)
Ryan Manilla, for the Plaintiffs (Appellants)
Kristin Smith, for the Defendants (Respondents)
HEARD at Toronto: October 16, 2013
Oral Reasons for Judgment
PARDU J. (orally)
1The plaintiff sued Andrew Smith and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario for damages for harassment, malicious falsehood and intentional interference with economic relations. He complained that “Smith tells the Court” things that reflected negatively upon the plaintiff. He attached to his claim, transcripts of proceedings in Court before a Justice of the Peace in which Smith made the statements complained of to the Court.
2The defendants brought a motion to strike out the claim pursuant to Rule 12. 02(1) of the Rules of the Small Claims Court which provide as follows:
12.02(1) The court may, on motion, strike out or amend all or part of any document that,
(a) discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence;
(b) may delay or make it difficult to have a fair trial; or
(c) is inflammatory, a waste of time, a nuisance or an abuse of the court’s process.
3The Small Claims Court Judge dismissed the claim on the ground that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and on the ground that the claim was a nuisance and an abuse of the Court’s process. The motion judge was correct to dismiss the claim based on the record before him and the action as pleaded.
4Communications which take place during, incidental to or in furtherance of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged. (See Fraleigh v. RBC Dominion Securities Inc. (2009), 99 O.R. (3d) 290). This privilege extends to all of the causes of action pleaded by the plaintiff. (See Web Offset Publications Ltd. v. Vickery, [1998] O.J. No. 6478, aff’d (1999) 1999 4462 (ON CA), 43 O.R. (3d) 802 (C.A.)). This was a sufficient basis to dismiss the claim.
5The plaintiff also raises an allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the motion judge. There is no evidence capable of supporting such an argument. Bias was not raised before the motion judge. Absolute privilege was a sufficient basis to dismiss the action and I need not address the other errors alleged by the plaintiff.
6The appeal is dismissed.
COSTS
7I have endorsed the back of the Appellant’s Appeal Book, “Appeal dismissed for reasons delivered orally. Costs to the respondents payable by the plaintiffs fixed at $2,500 all inclusive, within 30 days.”
PARDU J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 16, 2013
Date of Release: October 30, 2013
CITATION: Alessandro v. Smith, 2013 ONSC 6471
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 95/13
DATE: 20131016
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
PARDU J.
BETWEEN:
GIUSEPPE ALESSANDRO and LAW HELP LTD. Plaintiffs (Appellants)
– and –
ANDREW SMITH and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO Defendants (Respondents)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
PARDU J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 16, 2013
Date of Release: October 30, 2013