Roberts v. Toronto Life Publishing Co. Ltd., 2010 ONCA 82

CITATION: Roberts v. Toronto Life Publishing Co. Ltd., 2010 ONCA 82

DATE: 20100201

DOCKET: C50846

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Feldman, Gillese and Armstrong JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

Michael Shtaif and Gregory Roberts

Plaintiffs (Appellant)

And

Toronto Life Publishing Co. Ltd., Sarah Fulford, Jay Teitel, Veronica Maddocks, Angie Gardos, Matthew Fox and Claire Cooper

Defendants (Respondents)

Gregory Roberts in Person

Howard Winkler and Courtney Raphael, for the defendants

Heard and released orally: January 15, 2010

On appeal the judgment of Justice Randall Echlin of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 16, 2009.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] In this libel action, the defendant Toronto Life Publishing brought a motion for summary judgment asking the motion judge to find that there was no genuine issue for trial on whether the words complained of were capable of referring to the appellant Roberts and whether they were capable of being defamatory of the appellant.

[2] The motion judge concluded that summary judgment should go dismissing the action by the appellant Roberts. His reasons are quite sparse. Dealing with the number two excerpt complained of, that Schnaider accused Shtaif and Roberts of being “extortionists and possibly conspirators in an elaborate fraud”, the motion judge concluded that because it was conceded that Mr. Schnaider did make that accusation, it was not defamatory.

[3] With respect to excerpts 4 to 8 complained of, he concluded that they were not capable of being referable to the appellant Roberts.

[4] In our view, the motion judge erred in granting summary judgment. The test to be applied was whether there was a genuine issue for trial; in this case that is: whether the excerpts complained of were libellous. The motion judge did not explain why there is no genuine issue for trial. In our view, reading this article as a whole, it is clear that the excerpts complained of are capable of being defamatory of the appellant Mr. Roberts. The article clearly refers to Mr. Shtaif and Mr. Roberts and the allegations of criminal conduct are against both men.

[5] The appeal is therefore allowed and the summary judgment set aside.

Costs

[6] Costs to the appellant in the total amount of $10,000 inclusive of G.S.T. and disbursements for both the motion below and the appeal.

Signed: “K. Feldman J.A.”

“E.E. Gillese J.A.”

“Robert P. Armstrong”