Court File and Parties

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20241104 DOCKET: COA-23-CV-1363

Rouleau, Roberts and Favreau JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Ranbir Singh Mann, RS Mann Professional Corporation and Jane Doe Gulrukh Asif Plaintiffs/Responding Parties (Appellants)

and

Aminah Rafique*, Jane Doe Lawyers and John Doe Lawyers Defendants/Moving Party (Respondent*)

Counsel: Allan Rouben, for the appellants Gil Zvulony, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: November 1, 2024

On appeal from the order of Justice Markus Koehnen of the Superior Court of Justice, dated December 1, 2023.

Reasons for Decision

[1] This is an action for defamation based on allegedly slanderous statements made by the respondent against the appellants. The individual appellants share a personal relationship and also practice law together through the appellant professional corporation.

[2] The motion judge struck out the claims of Ms. Asif and the professional corporation without leave to amend and struck out the claim of Mr. Mann with leave to amend.

[3] The motion judge’s approach to the pleadings was flawed because he took an overly technical approach: see PMC York Properties Inc. v. Siudak, 2022 ONCA 635, 473 D.L.R. (4th) 136. This was a rule 21 motion where the facts pleaded had to be taken as true. In our view, he made two errors.

[4] First, with respect to Mr. Mann, he erred in concluding that special damages were not sufficiently pleaded. The statement of claim pleads sufficient particulars of special damages, including loss of professional reputation and business arising from the alleged defamation. In any event, this pleading also satisfies s. 16 of the Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L. 12.

[5] Second, the motion judge erred in striking out the claims brought by Ms. Asif and the professional corporation without granting leave to amend. From a plain reading of the statement of claim, the core of a reasonable cause of action for defamation is pleaded on behalf of Ms. Asif and the professional corporation: see, for example, paragraphs 16 to 18 of the statement of claim. However, the statement of claim fails to plead sufficient particulars of how the statements defamed Ms. Asif and the professional corporation, including their defamatory “sting”.

[6] The appellants’ counsel in argument suggested that the statements have defamatory meaning because of the cultural and professional context in which they were allegedly communicated by the respondent. This is an example of an amendment that may be sufficient to regularize the pleadings.

[7] For these reasons, the appeal is allowed. Paragraphs 2 to 6 of the motion judge’s order are set aside. Ms. Asif and the professional corporation are required to file a further amended statement of claim that provides the particulars in accordance with these reasons. They have sixty days to file the further amended statement of claim.

[8] The costs of the appeal are fixed in the amount of $10,000 to the appellants payable by the respondent. We order no costs with respect to the motion below.

“Paul Rouleau J.A.”

“L.B. Roberts J.A.”

“L. Favreau J.A.”