Court of Appeal for Ontario

2014 ONCA 184

DATE: 20140310

DOCKET: C57378 and C57379

Juriansz, Pepall and van Rensburg JJ.A.

BETWEEN

DOCKET: C57378

373041 Ontario Limited

Plaintiff/Appellant

and

King Reed & Associates Inc., King Reed & Associates LP, King Reed & Associates, Granite Global Solutions Inc., Shaw Satellite G.P., c.o.b. as Shaw Direct and Bell Expressvu Limited Partnership

Defendants/Respondents

AND BETWEEN

DOCKET: C57379

Kurt Pieckenhagen, Julita Pieckenhagen, Julita-Luise Pieckenhagen, Nicole Pieckenhagen and Vera Pieckenhagen

Plaintiffs/Appellants

and

King Reed & Associates Inc., King Reed & Associates LP, King Reed & Associates, Granite Global Solutions, Granite Global Solutions Inc., Shaw Satellite G.P., c.o.b. as Shaw Direct and Bell Expressvu Limited Partnership

Defendants/Respondents

Counsel:

Melvyn L. Solmon and Nancy J. Tourgis, for the appellants

Christopher D. Bredt and Denise L. Bambrough, for the respondents Shaw Satellite G.P., c.o.b. as Shaw Direct and Bell Expressvu Limited Partnership

Heard and released orally: March 6, 2014

On appeal from the orders of Justice Edward M. Morgan of the Superior Court of Justice, dated June 20, 2013.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellants appeal the June 20, 2013 orders of the motions judge in which he granted the summary judgment motions of the respondents and dismissed the appellants’ actions against them. The appeals involve two companion libel actions brought by the appellants. In neither action did the defendants, King Reed & Associates Inc., King Reed & Associates LP, and King Reed & Associates (“King Reed”) move for summary judgment and the actions continue against those parties.

[2] The appellants’ claims arise from an article that appeared in a King Reed corporate newsletter and which was then posted on a website of a limited partner of King Reed and removed 16 days later. The appellants conceded that the evidence did not disclose any agency relationship between King Reed and the Shaw respondent.

[3] The appellants filed no affidavits in response to the summary judgment motions of the respondents.

[4] On this appeal, the appellants submit that the motions judge erred in failing to draw an adverse inference from refusals given on cross-examinations.

[5] We disagree.

[6] The motions judge considered the refusals and declined to draw an adverse inference. Based on the record before him, it was open to him to make that determination.

[7] The appeals are dismissed. Costs to the respondents are fixed in the amount of $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes and are to be allocated equally between the two actions.

“R. G. Juriansz J.A.”

“S.E. Pepall J.A.”

“K. van Rensburg J.A.”