CITATION: Kazincz v. Best Buy Canada Limited, 2009 ONCA 66
DATE: 20090122
DOCKET: C48881
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Sharpe, Blair and Rouleau JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
Rudy Kazincz
Appellant/Plaintiff
and
Best Buy Canada Limited (A.K.A. ando/a “Future Shop”)
Respondent/Defendant
Ernest J. Guiste for the appellant/plaintiff
Bonnie Roberts-Jones and Trevor Guy for the respondent/defendant
Heard: January 22, 2009
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Marchand of the Superior Court of Justice dated May 27, 2008.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] We see no error on the part of the motion judge in concluding that there was no triable issue with respect to the claim of defamation. The statement said to be defamatory was the employer’s submission of a statutory form to the employment insurance authorities that the appellant had been “dismissed”. The employer avoided providing any details of why the employee had been dismissed that would allow the employment insurance authorities to treat the dismissal as having been for cause and to disentitle the appellant to employment insurance benefits. The appellant was paid those benefits accordingly.
[2] Even if the subsequent follow-up statement that he had been dismissed for breach of policy and that it was conduct related could be regarded as defamatory, there is nothing in the evidence that would support the assertion that that statement was made with malice so as to overcome the qualified privilege that attached to it. That statement was restrained and provided no details of misconduct. Neither the statement itself or anything else in the record is capable of giving rise to an inference of malice.
[3] Appeal dismissed. Costs to the respondent of the motion to extend time and the appeal fixed at $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.