Rohan Haté

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing his defamation action against his first cousins.

The appellant alleged that the respondents made defamatory statements accusing him of sexual assault: one through an alleged text message sent in 2019 and another through an alleged repetition of that message in 2021.

The motion judge found no admissible evidence of the alleged text message and rejected the appellant's evidence regarding its repetition based on credibility findings.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no error in the motion judge's credibility determinations and noting that the appellant had narrowed his claims at the motion stage, thereby distinguishing the issues from a separate related action.

The defendants moved for summary judgment in a defamation action brought by their uncle, who alleged they sent and repeated a text message calling him a rapist.

The court utilized its enhanced fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04 to hear oral evidence on a discrete credibility issue regarding the alleged repetition of the text.

Finding no admissible evidence that the text message ever existed and preferring the defendant's evidence that he never repeated such a statement, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motion was granted, the action was dismissed, and the defendants were awarded $30,000 in costs.

The plaintiff, W.C., brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant, R.S., for sexual assault and battery.

The claim stemmed from a sexual relationship that began when the plaintiff was approximately 14 years old and the defendant, her father's cousin, was significantly older and in a position of trust.

The defendant had previously pleaded guilty to a criminal charge related to the relationship.

The court found that the defendant's admitted facts in the criminal proceedings, combined with his evidence on the motion, established liability for sexual battery.

The court determined that any "consent" at the outset was not legally effective due to the plaintiff's age, inexperience, and the defendant's exploitation of a position of trust.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that lack of resistance implied consent.

The motion for summary judgment on liability was granted.

The court also assessed damages, awarding $225,000 in general damages and $50,000 in aggravated damages, plus $14,400 for future therapy, totaling $289,400.

Punitive damages were not awarded given the prior criminal sentence.

The defendant insurer, Lloyd's Underwriters, brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs, S.H.W. Investment Inc., Yau Wing Wong, and Yau Kwan Wong, to participate in the appraisal process under section 128 of the Insurance Act for fire damage to two of their three properties.

The plaintiffs resisted, arguing prejudice due to a separate action against their broker and the exclusion of the third property from appraisal, as well as alleged delay by the insurer.

The court found the appraisal process mandatory under Statutory Condition 11 of the Insurance Act, noting limited discretion to refuse such applications.

It dismissed the plaintiffs' arguments regarding prejudice and delay as speculative or unfounded, emphasizing that the appraisal process is independent of other questions and concurrent litigation.

The motion was granted, compelling the plaintiffs to appoint an appraiser and setting a timeline for the appraisal process for the two covered units.

Costs were awarded to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis.