DATE: 20050308

DOCKET: C42052

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

JAG BHADURIA (Plaintiff (Appellant)) – and THE NATIONAL POST, CHARLES DAVIES, DONALD BABICK and KENNETH WHYTE (Defendants (Respondents))

BEFORE:

SIMMONS, GILLESE AND LAFORME JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

Jag Bhaduria in person

Ted Key

for the respondent, National Post et al.

HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY:

March 4, 2005

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Victor Paisely of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 3, 2004.

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] The appellant appeals from a summary judgment dismissing the appellant’s claim that the respondents defamed him when they published the following comment:

MP Jag Bhaduria (who didn’t have the law degree he said he did).

[2] The respondents defended the claim on the basis that the report was true. On our review of the record, the motion judge was correct in holding that there was no genuine issue for trial.

[3] In his affidavit filed on the summary judgment motion the appellant acknowledged that he had written a letter to the Ontario chair of the Liberal Party listing his academic accomplishments as “M.Sc., M. Ed., PCE and LL.B. (Int.).” However, the appellant claimed that the designation LL.B. (Int.) indicates only that he had completed the first two years of his law studies and that he never claimed to the Ontario chair that LL.B. (Int.) was a degree.

[4] The respondent’s material indicated that a Small Claims court judge had made a finding that the appellant “did acknowledge that he had said that he had a LL.B. when he did not.” Although the appellant asserted that the Small Claims court judge misinterpreted his evidence, the appellant did not file transcripts to support his assertion nor even evidence that he had attempted to obtain such transcripts.

[5] The respondents also relied on evidence that the appellant conceded on cross-examination in a third proceeding that he was unaware of anyone else using the designation LL.B. (Int.) after their name along with other degrees.

[6] Further, we agree with the motion judge’s conclusion that the documents filed from the appellant’s former law school set out no basis for the appellant describing his credentials in the manner that he did.

[7] In the result we conclude that, apart from unsubstantiated assertions in response to the defence evidence, the appellant failed to raise any evidence on the motion for summary judgment to support his position that there was a genuine issue for trial.

[8] The appeal is therefore dismissed.

“Janet Simmons J.A.”

“E.E. Gillese J.A.”

“H.S. LaForme J.A.”