DATE: 20060317
DOCKET: C43688
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
STARWOOD GROUP INC. (Appellant) –and- CAROL CALVELTI, DEBRA BELAND, JANE LAROCQUE, and JOHN POZIOS (Respondents)
BEFORE:
LABROSSE, SHARPE and CRONK JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Andrew Stein
for the appellant
Patricia M. Conway
for the respondents
HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY:
March 13, 2006
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Herman J.W. Siegel of the Superior Court of Justice, dated May 18, 2005 made at Toronto, Ontario.
E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] This is an appeal from the order of Siegel J., in which, pursuant to Rule 21, he struck one of the appellant’s claims for defamation against the respondents on the basis that the statement in the April 2001 newsletter was not capable of a defamatory meaning. A claim for defamation in regard to the August 2001 newsletter was allowed to proceed.
[2] The appellant is a real estate development corporation. It was involved in the marketing and development of the residential condominiums at 188 Eglinton Avenue East. The respondents are residents at 188 Eglinton Avenue East, and three of them are directors on the Board of Condominium Corporation No. 1250. The Corporation publishes newsletters for its members.
[3] In dismissing the allegation of defamation based on the April 2001 newsletter dealing with inaccurate and unreliable hydro meters, the motions judge concluded:
that the section of the newsletter containing the statement is clearly distinct from the other items describing actions against the Developer Group (the appellant had been identified as a member of the Developer Group in a memo dated January 16, 2001);
that there is no mention of the appellant in the relevant section; and
there is no suggestion that the deficiency is actionable against any third parties, and in particular, the appellant.
[4] We agree with the analysis of the motions judge. In our view, the words in the statement do not refer to an ascertainable person and do not refer to the appellant in particular. Moreover, the statement did not state or imply that anyone was responsible or at fault for the inaccurate method of calculating electrical charges.
[5] The statement, as a matter of law, is not capable of a defamatory meaning.
[6] The appeal is dismissed with costs fixed at $4,190.00 plus G.S.T.