Waterloo Region Small Claims Court 85 Frederick Street

Kitchener, Ontario N2H 0A7

Court File No: SC-22-00000719-0000 Court File No: SC-22-00000720-0000

ONTARIO

SMALL CLAIMS COURT

B E T W E E N:

ROD SMITH

Plaintiff

-and-

LIAM MORLAND

Defendant

AND B E T W E E N:

KIMBERLY GRIFFITHS

Plaintiff

and

LIAM MORLAND

Defendant

Plaintiffs: Sheldon Inkol Defendant: MacKenzie Laforet

Dates of Trial: May 6, June 23, September 4, September 29, October 7, and November 20, 2025 Deputy Judge James H. Bennett

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

I. THE PROCEEDINGS

1These two actions were ordered tried together and proceeded as one trial over six days of evidence and oral submissions.

2The parties were represented by very capable and experienced counsel, who were of great assistance to the Court in filing proper comprehensive Document Briefs, Briefs of Law, and additional Written Submissions. The Court is indebted to them for their assistance, co-operation, and professionalism in proceeding with a lengthy and complex case, in the most efficient and organized manner.

3Counsel for the Plaintiffs confirmed that despite the recent amendments to the Small Claims Court’s monetary jurisdiction, that the plaintiffs in both actions were still limiting their claims to the Court’s original monetary jurisdiction limit of $35,000.00.

II. OVERVIEW

4Rod Smith (“Smith”) and Kimberly Griffiths (“Griffiths”) collectively referred to as the (“Plaintiffs”) each commenced an action against Liam Morland (“Morland”), seeking general damages for defamation and intentional infliction of mental suffering, as well as punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages.

5In response to the claims for defamation, Morland has pleaded the defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege, claiming that the Plaintiffs acted improperly in removing him as a Director and Member of the Canadian Traditional Scouting Association (“CTSA”).

6Smith and Morland were lifelong participants in the Canadian Scouting movement through various Scouting organizations, reaching their positions in 2019-2020, where Smith was the National Commissioner of CTSA and they were both Members and Directors of the Executive Council of CTSA.

7Smith and Morland had been friends for approximately 30 years up and until 2020. They were both actively involved and dedicated to promoting the Scouting movement in Canada.

8Griffiths is engaged to be married to Smith and has been living together with him since 2020. She became involved in the Scouting movement when her children were young and became a Beaver Leader with Scouts Canada in 1993. She became a Member of CTSA in 2017, and a Director of the Executive Council since 2019.

9Sadly, the evidence at trial confirmed that the issues leading to the dispute between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant in this litigation has weighed heavily on all parties and terminated the longtime friendship between Smith and Morland.

10These actions arise out of a power struggle and perceived grievances involving the operation and control of the CTSA, a private not-for-profit corporation governed through its Executive Council.

11Morland was asked to adhere to and accept the decisions made by the Executive Council and to comply with its specific direction. His failure to do so ultimately resulted in his removal as a Director of the Executive Council and eventually as a Member of CTSA.

12The overarching issue in both these defamation actions is whether Morland’s subsequent statements contained in emails, a telephone call, and a written Formal Complaint, that were communicated by him to third parties who were not Directors of the Executive Council amounted to a defamation of Smith and Griffiths. His obvious motivation was to seek his reinstatement as a Director of the Executive Council, and to overturn previous decisions of the Executive Council that he disagreed with. Therefore, in addition to determining if these statements that are not denied by Morland, are in fact defamatory, it must also be determined whether they can be shielded or excused by the pleaded defences of justification/truth, fair comment, and qualified privilege.

III. THE ISSUES

13The following are the issues that must be determined:

(a) In Smith’s Claim, Court File No. SC-22-00000719-0000

(i) Are the statements made by Morland with respect to Smith, summarized in

Schedule “A” to these Reasons defamatory?

(ii) Can all of the statements made by Morland, summarized in Schedule “A” be

fairly and objectively determined to be referring to Smith?

(iii) If so, has Morland established one of the defences of justification/truth; fair comment, or qualified privilege?

(iv) Were the statements made with malice or for an improper purpose?

(v) If the statements are found to be defamatory and no defence established, what are Smith’s damages? Are there additional damages for mental distress? Should punitive, aggravated, or exemplary damages be awarded?

(b) In Griffiths’ Claim, Court File No. SC- 22-00000720-0000

(i) Are the statements made by Morland with respect to Griffiths, summarized in

Schedule “B” to these Reasons defamatory?

(ii) Can all of the statements made by Morland, summarized in Schedule “B” be

fairly and objectively determined to be referring to Griffiths?

(iii) If so, has Morland established one of the defences of justification/truth; fair comment, or qualified privilege?

(iv) Were the statements made with malice or for an improper purpose?

(v) If the statements are found to be defamatory and no defence established, what are Griffith’s damages? Are there additional damages for mental distress? Should punitive, aggravated, or exemplary damages be awarded?

IV. THE FACTS

The Plaintiff, Smith

14The Plaintiff, Smith is 72 years of age. He has a BA in Environmental Science and a Masters in Pastoral Counselling. He was retired from a consulting engineering business. He is in a common-law relationship with the Plaintiff, Griffiths and they are engaged to be married.

15Smith has been actively involved in Scouting since 1965, including Scouts Canada, Scouting Waterloo Region, Traditional Scouting Association, and eventually, CTSA as the National Commissioner and CEO, which designated him as the Chairman of CTSA’s Executive Council. He is now the past Commissioner and remains involved in CTSA as its Chaplain. He has received many awards and recognition for his involvement in Scouting, and the Lutheran Church. I find on the evidence at trial that Smith was respected in the Scouting movement in Canada and had an excellent reputation, which being maintained was of critical importance to him.

16Smith knew Morland for over 30 years through their mutual involvement in Scouting organizations, and they were friends until the issues giving rise to this litigation occurred.

17Smith had a bout of depression, arising from the deaths of some close family members, resulting in him taking a leave of absence in his role as the National Commissioner of CTSA in early October, 2020, returning to his normal role with CTSA at the end of November, 2020.

18Smith was a forthright and credible witness on his own behalf. There is no doubt that the alleged defamatory statements, emails and the written Formal Complaint sent by Morland were very upsetting to him.

The Plaintiff, Griffiths

19Griffiths is 62 years old. She has a Batchelor of Science Nursing degree and previously worked as a nurse in the military and nursing homes. She and Smith started living together in 2020 and are engaged to be married.

20Griffiths has been involved in Scouting organizations since the early 90’s. She left Scouts Canada and eventually joined CTSA in 2017, becoming a Director of the Executive Council in 2019. Since 2019, she was the designated insurance liaison for CTSA and was elected

to the role of Director of Western Ontario in 2020. In 2020, she was the Executive Council Director assigned as the contact person for the World Federation of Independent Scouts (“WFIS”).

21I find on the evidence that Griffiths was a well-liked popular volunteer in the Scouting movement. Her nickname is “Scouter Mom”.

22Similar to Smith, she testified in a straightforward and credible manner, without any inconsistencies.

The Defendant, Morland

23Morland has an Honours BA from the University of Waterloo and is a computer programmer and website developer. He has been involved in Scouting since he was a cub scout with Scouts Canada. He has continued his involvement in various Scouting organizations up and until the present time.

24Morland first met Smith in 1996 and later met Griffiths in 2004. Until the events leading to this litigation, he had a friendly relationship with both of them.

25Morland left Scouts Canada in 2011 and eventually went on to form Scouting Waterloo Region (“SWR”) with Smith and Griffiths, along with others in 2015. Later with Smith, Griffiths and others, he arranged for Scouting Waterloo Region to join the Traditional Scouters Association, which was later renamed CTSA. As of December 2018, SWR was a chartered member of CTSA, and Morland was a Director at Large on the Executive Council whose specific duties involved Communications.

26All of the evidence confirmed that Morland was passionate and dedicated to the Scouting movement. He was described to be an excellent leader with the individual Scouts and programs. Unfortunately, he has a history of personal conflict with the other leaders and directors of Scouting organizations he has been involved with, including CTSA, which then led to the events that occurred in 2020 and 2021, resulting in this litigation.

27Morland presented as a witness who was very opinionated and stubborn. He was somewhat evasive and argumentative in answering questions and felt compelled to go into long responses to justify his position, without being able to accept that others have a different opinion that might be correct or should at least be considered. Observing Morland’s demeanor as a witness, it is not hard to understand how his personality and approach to all issues on an extremely technical and black and white basis brought him into the conflict with the other Executive Council Directors that then gave rise to this litigation.

CTSA

28CTSA is a small not-for-profit corporation that is run solely by volunteers like Smith, Griffiths and Morland.

29In 2018, the Traditional Scouting Association existed as an offshoot from Scouts Canada that adhered to a traditional view of the Scouting movement, and Baden-Powell’s Scouting

principles. The Traditional Scouting Association was renamed CTSA and as of December 8, 2018, SWR became a chartered member of CTSA, with Morland, Smith and Griffiths being Directors on its Executive Council.

30CTSA provides administrative structure for approximately 10-16 (the number varies over time), of Scouting troops of Charter Members. Each of the Charter Members is responsible for the organization and operation of their own specific Scouting group.

31CTSA was registered as Ontario Corporation No. 1401408, and registered as a charitable organization. It had by-laws (Exhibit 3, Tab 90) and Policy, Organization, and Rules (“PO&R”) (Exhibit 1, Tab A) as of May 2, 2020. It is significant that at the Annual General Meeting (“AGM”)on November 28, 2020, it was communicated to all Members of the CTSA that the organization was in the process of transitioning into a federal corporation, due to the changes in the Ontario legislation dealing with non-profit corporations. It was explained that during the transition, and based on the legal advice of CTSA’s lawyers, certain matters such as the election of new corporate officers was postponed.

32CTSA at the present time is now a federal not-for-profit corporation that operates under a new corporate structure and by-laws. The exact date of the changeover from the previous provincial corporation to the new federal corporation was not part of the evidence, but it was clear that this did not happen until some time in 2023 or 2024, after the commencement of this litigation.

Events Leading to Morland’s Removal as a Director of the Executive Council of CTSA

33It is important to note that all of the events and background facts resulting in these actions occurred during the Covid-19 epidemic and shut down. The Executive Council meetings and AGM of CTSA all took place by Zoom video conferences, and most communication between the parties was by email. There were very little in-person meetings and Scouting activities were curtailed. It was a strange and stressful time for everyone.

34In June 2020, the position of Secretary of the CTSA was an elected position held by Joellen Ayala, and at the June 28, 2020 Executive Council meeting, in Ms. Ayala’s absence, Amie Heaslip (“Heaslip”) attended as the “Guest Secretary”. It was unclear from the evidence whether Ms. Ayala was taking a leave of absence or resigning, but in any event, she never returned as the Secretary or as a Member of the Executive Council. There was indirect reference to the fact that Ms. Ayala left her position and the organization as a result of conflicts with Morland, but this fact was never established by way of proper evidence.

35A dispute then arose between Morland and the other Directors of the Executive Council on whether or not Heaslip could continue as the Secretary. Morland demanded her resignation from Executive Council, alleging improprieties in her appointment and a failure to follow the CTSA PO&R.

36Heaslip was not called as a witness at trial, but emails between her, Morland, and the other Members of the Executive Council were tendered as evidence, and confirmed a significant personal conflict and power struggle between Morland and Heaslip. There was a major

disagreement over procedural issues and the control of the information on the CTSA website that had previously been under the sole control of Morland as the Director in charge of Communications.

37These initial disputes, and tensions escalated following an Executive Council meeting on September 27, 2020, where over Morland’s objections, Heaslip continued as the “Guest Secretary”. Following the September 27, 2020 Executive Council meeting, further inflammatory emails were exchanged between Heaslip and Morland.

38The Finance and Administration Committee of the Executive Council, which consisted of Griffiths, Shane Durham (“Durham”), Alanna Duff, and Marnie Ferguson (“Ferguson”), were tasked to form a special ad hoc Committee to investigate and report to the Executive Council on the disputed issue about the Secretary. Ferguson had then become the Acting National Commissioner of CTSA at this time, due to Smith commencing his leave of absence.

39The initial sole purpose of the Committee’s investigation was to determine if Heaslip could properly continue as the Secretary of the Executive Council under CTSA’s PO& R. The Committee obtained legal advice on that issue from CTSA’s lawyer, which they relied on in preparing their report and recommendations to the Executive Council.

40The initial purpose to investigate the issue of Heaslip continuing as the Secretary of the Executive Council was expanded after other Executive Council Members raised issues about Morland’s conduct. The Committee Members, Durham and Ferguson met twice with Morland on the issue and the Executive Council voted to accept Heaslip as the Secretary, with only Morland voting against the motion.

41The findings of the Administrative and Finance Committee, along with their recommendations to the Executive Council are contained in their report of October 6, 2020 (Exhibit 3, Defendants’ Document Brief, Tab 26). The conclusions in the report are that Heaslip was properly appointed the Corporate Secretary in reference to the Bylaws, Robert’s Rules of Order, and the Canadian Ontario Not-for-Profit Corporations legislation. The recommendation of the Committee was that Heaslip assume all duties of the Corporate Secretary, retroactive to June 28, 2020, and that the motion appointing her as Corporate Secretary on September 27, 2020 was correct. This recommendation was again confirmed by the Executive Council at their meeting on October 15, 2020.

42Unfortunately, between October 15, 2020 and October 25, 2020, Morland made it very clear that he was not willing to accept the decisions of the Executive Council or to conform to its direction, with respect to the issue of the Corporate Secretary and Heaslip. In his previous meetings with Durham and Ferguson, they discussed his expected behaviour and the need for him to work with the Executive Council, and stay within the Council’s PO&R. They specifically advised him that numerous complaints were being made against him that were basically centered around him not working well with others and creating unnecessary conflict by refusing to follow the direction of the Executive Council and the National Commissioner. He was warned that if his conduct continued, that the Executive Council

would rescind his position as a Director of the Executive Council, although he would be encouraged to continue as part of CTSA as a Scout Leader.

43The email that was sent to Morland prior to the scheduled October 25, 2020 Executive Council meeting concluded:

“As you are once again refusing to accept Council’s decision in regard to the Corporate Secretary’s appointment, I am informing you that the Council will take time this evening to determine what your standing will be on Executive Council. Once a decision has been reached, the Council will inform you forthwith, and a procedure to move forward will be explained to you.” (Exhibit 3, Defendants’ Document Brief, Tab 31)

44Morland did not attend the regular part of the scheduled Executive Council meeting on October 25, 2020, and the meeting then proceeded in camera with him being recused. The Minutes of this meeting (Exhibit 1, Plaintiff Documents Brief, Tab D) show that there was significant discussion about the issue of Morland continuing on the Executive Council and the previous attempts of Durham and Ferguson to have him follow the direction of the Executive Council. The concerns expressed were serious enough that it was recorded that to allow Morland to continue would result in the resignation of a number of other Directors of the Executive Council, and a loss of several Charter Groups from the organization, which was clearly not in the best interests of CTSA. Motions were then moved and passed as follows:

(i) There was sufficient evidence that Morland was not acting in the best interests of CTSA and without self-interest at all times, giving rise to just cause to have his warrants and appointments to the Executive Council, Director at large position, and communications cancelled immediately;

(ii) That Morland was to surrender all legal and historical documents associated with the CTSA via the Administrative and Finance Committee by the end of business day, October 30, 2020;

(iii) The administrative rights to all digital assets of CTSA and management of those assets that were currently controlled by or possessed by Morland were to be surrendered to the CTSA Executive Council via the Administrative and Finance Committee by the end of business day, October 30, 2020; and

(vi) The Executive Council would encourage Morland to continue his work within CTSA as leader of the 20^th Cambridge troop, in recognition of his excellent service as a Scouter in his group, provided he adheres to CTSA’s PO&R.

45It should be noted that Smith, who was on leave of absence at the time did not attend at the October 25, 2020 Executive Council meeting that resulted in Morland’s removal as a Director. Griffiths, who was present, abstained from voting on the motion to remove Morland as a Director, but seconded the motion dealing with him continuing his work within CTSA as a leader, in recognition of his excellent service as a Scouter in his group.

46Ferguson notified Morland of the CTSA’s Executive Council’s decision in a letter dated October 27, 2020 that was emailed to the Defendant on October 29, 2020 (Exhibit 1, Document Brief of the Plaintiffs, Tab E), which accurately reflected the discussions and motions that took place at the Executive Council’s meeting on October 25, 2020, stating:

“You continue to name and harass Members of the Executive Council via email, even though you were aware that such harassment is uncomfortable for others. This has made many past members leave the Council and/or Association, and/or put letters of resignation before the Council currently. Even knowing that these letters of resignation were before the Council, you continue to insist on dealing with these Council Members in a manner that you know would make them upset and feel harassed.

This and other matters described in the emails sent on September 25, 2020, were contributing factors in the Resolutions passed by the Executive Council. It is the belief of the Council that you no longer are working for the betterment of the Council, and are willing to put the entire Association at risk to meet your own personal agenda… We expect as a Scout that you honour your commitment to the authority of this organization and to your promise in law by abiding by the Resolutions passed by the Council.”

47Morland did not accept the decisions and authority of the Executive Council. Two days after being notified of his removal from the Executive Council, he emailed Ferguson to share his concerns about non-compliance with Covid-19 Guidelines, and making what Plaintiffs’ counsel suggests was a veiled threat about public perception and the press writing negatively about the Scouting movement doing things wrong.

48Smith subsequently returned from his leave of absence to his role as National Commissioner. On November 25, 2020, Morland asked Smith to intercede on his behalf, thinking that Smith would “correct” the Executive Council’s decision to remove him. Smith advised Morland by letter of the same date that he had been reassured by Executive Council that Morland had been dealt with in a legal and defensible manner, and he was not prepared to have a further discussion about his concerns, encouraging Smith to focus on his work with the 20^th Cambridge troop.

The WFIS Email

49Morland still would not “let the matter go”, as Ferguson had implored him to do. He then took his campaign for reinstatement outside of the Directors of the Executive Council. On December 20, 2025, Morland sent an email to three individuals at WFIS (Exhibit 1, Document Brief of the Plaintiffs, Tab F), which contained numerous allegations of misconduct on the part of CTSA and its Directors. This email was sent without any advance notice to CTSA and with Morland’s full knowledge that Griffiths was the CTSA official designated as the liaison with WFIS. Morland also was aware of the fact that CTSA had a conditional Membership in WFIS and was seeking to achieve a permanent Membership designation.

50In this email to WFIS, Morland stated that the CTSA “did not even ask its members to remove the WFIS emblem” and had recently approved two new handbooks which instructed members to wear the WFIS emblem. It also stated that Smith had stayed in office after the expiry of his term, without holding an election at the AGM. All of these statements were contrary to the information that had been provided to the Members of CTSA, including Morland, at the November 28, 2020 AGM.

51In addition, Morland falsely identified himself as a Director of CTSA, and his email signature identified him as the CTSA Director of Communications.

52Morland, when cross-examined about this email, maintained the position that everything in it was true, including his ongoing status as a Director. He stated that he expected WFIS to investigate his claims and to compel CTSA to follow his interpretation of its by-laws.

53I find that the purpose in sending this email was improper and done as a form of retribution for his removal as a Director of CTSA or to somehow gain leverage in his ongoing attempts for reinstatement. The issue that I will have to now determine is whether or not this email, which does not mention Smith or Griffiths specifically by name and only refers to CTSA and its Directors, can be considered personally defamatory as against either Griffiths or Smith or both.

54Not surprisingly, the WFIS chairman, in responding to Morland’s email, indicated that WFIS did not have the authority to interfere with internal issues of an association such as CTSA, but hoped that they were able to work out the difficulties themselves. It is significant that in the reply email to Morland on December 31, 2020, that only Smith and Griffiths were copied, even though Morland had not copied them on his earlier email to WFIS.

Morland’s removal as a member of CTSA

55The Executive Council met on December 27, 2020 to discuss Morland’s email to WFIS. The Executive Council approved a responding letter to be sent by Griffiths to WFIS and passed a motion unanimously that CTSA would not accept Morland’s Member registration on his upcoming Membership renewal (Exhibit 2, Supplementary Document Brief of Plaintiffs, Tab H).

56CTSA then held a meeting for the leaders in SWR on January 20, 2021, which was the umbrella group under which 20^th Cambridge and other troops were operated in the area. This meeting was attended by Jim Graham (“Graham”) and Kristen Howard (“Howard”), who were also witnesses at the trial. Morland, on his cross-examination, agreed that he had spoken with Graham and Howard prior to this meeting, and told them both that the Executive Council was not following the CTSA by-laws.

57I accept the evidence of Smith, Griffiths, Durham and Ken Weir that Graham was confrontational and disruptive during the SWR meeting on January 20, 2021. Howard confirmed in her testimony that Graham behaved aggressively, and refused to accept that the reasons for Morland’s removal from CTSA must be kept confidential. Graham agreed that he was upset. He denied “hijacking” the meeting but did not deny his behaviour. He

agreed that he was told generally that the reason for Morland’s removal from the Executive Council and as a Member of CTSA is that he refused to follow the direction of the Executive Council, and that his failure to agree to follow that direction had brought him to the point where he was removed both as a Director and a Member.

58Subsequently, it was discovered in February 2021 that 20^th Cambridge Troop had engaged in a paintball activity in the Fall of 2020, when expense invoices that had been submitted for payment were reviewed. An inordinate and unnecessary amount of time at trial was taken up with respect to the issue of whether paintball activities were covered under the CTSA liability insurance policy.

59While there may have been some confusion in the wording of certain emails, I am satisfied on all of the evidence, including the insurance policy information records obtained from the insurance broker, and the risk management seminars put on by Griffiths for the Executive Council and Members confirm that paintballing was not an authorized activity for the Scouts in CTSA. In addition to it raising unnecessary risks for the Scouts who participated without any insurance coverage, I prefer the simple reasoning of Smith, who expressed his view that paintballing involving shooting guns with paintballs as ammunition at each other, was not something consistent with general and proper Scouting principles.

60Griffiths then sent Graham and Howard a letter dated January 28, 2021, (Exhibit 3, Defendants’ Document Brief, Tab 48) suspending them without specifying the reasons, but confirming they were entitled to be heard at an Inquiry into their conduct.

61An Inquiry was held by way of a Zoom conference with Griffiths, Durham and Ken Weir, participating on behalf of CTSA and Howard and Graham attending on behalf of themselves, where the issue of the paintballing activity was specifically discussed.

62At this eventual Inquiry, Howard’s suspension was lifted and she was reinstated as a Member, but she never returned to CTSA. Graham continued to not be satisfied with the information he was receiving, concerning Morland’s removal from the Executive Council and as a Member, although he admitted that Smith specifically told him that nothing involving inappropriate behaviour by Morland with any of the Scouts under his supervision caused the termination, and that it was based on his general refusal to follow the directions of the Executive Council. Graham’s suspension was not lifted and confirmed after the Inquiry, with him being advised that he had the right to appeal. Graham subsequently asked for an appeal on July 4, 2021, in an email addressed to Morland, but copied to Smith and Howard. This email appears to be in response to an email chain to an email sent by Morland to Smith, dated July 3, 2021, complaining about Graham and Howard’s suspensions, as well as the refusal to renew his own Membership. Morland stated that he was appealing his “suspension to National Council”, and concluded:

“We haven’t decided what the next step is, but quiet acceptance will not be it.” (Exhibit 3, Defendants’ Document Brief, Tab 57).

63Smith and Griffiths confirmed that the position of CTSA was that any appeal was long out of time, and at this point, as discussed below, Morland and CTSA had engaged legal

counsel that were exchanging correspondence with legal counsel for Smith, Griffiths, and CTSA.

Morland’s Email to Mike Cornish, dated January 31, 2021

64Mike Cornish was a CTSA Member but was not on the Executive Council. He is the father- in-law of Griffiths’ daughter. The email from Morland, dated January 31, 2021, was sent to Mike Cornish (Exhibit 1, Document Brief of the Plaintiffs, Tab G) referred to “Rod and others”, and stated, “they did not lawfully remove me”, and “are also spreading falsehoods”. Morland admitted on his cross-examination that he subsequently sent similar emails to other SWR Members, but couldn’t recall any details.

The Revocation of the Charter of 20th Cambridge Troop

65Following the decision not to renew Morland’s Membership and the suspensions of Graham and Howard, since there was no troop leader, CTSA revoked the Charter of the 20^th Cambridge troop. A formal letter was sent to Morland, Howard and Graham, dated February 9, 2021 (Exhibit 1, Plaintiffs’ Document Brief, Tab H). A letter advised that the Executive Council made a decision to revoke the Charter of 20^th Cambridge, but that recognizing the impact such a decision would have on the youth involved in the current program, in good faith, they suggested “a way forward” with specific details to transition the involved Scouts in 20^th Cambridge to start their own troop as they see fit, and to continue to use the 20^th Cambridge group name if so desired. An earlier letter had been sent to the parents of the Scouts in the Cambridge 20^th troop on February 5, 2021, advising that all activities under the auspices of CTSA were suspended until further notice, and offering the parents a full refund of CTSA Membership fees.

The Involvement of Legal Counsel

66Morland’s legal counsel, Jack Masterman of Miller, Thomson LLP, sent a letter to Smith as National Commissioner of CTSA, dated February 11, 2021, with respect to the “purported removal of Mr. Morland from the EC” (Exhibit 3, Defendants’ Document Brief, Tab 52). The letter complained that Morland’s removal from the Executive Council and as a Member of CTSA was done contrary to the by-laws and PO&R, and was an unfair procedure not conducted with basic principles of natural justice. The letter also confirmed that Mr. Masterman was retained on behalf of Graham and Howard, and made similar complaints with respect to their suspensions as Members of CTSA. The letter concluded that failing an acceptable response and reinstatement, that his clients “will have no alternative but to commence a Court proceeding in relation to the same.”

67Counsel for CTSA, Sheldon Inkol of Blaney McMurtry LLP, responded to Mr. Masterman’s letter on behalf of CTSA, by his letter of March 7, 2021 (Exhibit 1, Plaintiffs’ Document Brief, Tab I). Mr. Inkol reviewed the issues and background facts that lead to Morland’s removal from the Executive Council and the decision not to renew his Membership in CTSA. The letter referred to the February 9, 2021 letter from CTSA which offered a “way forward”. The letter concluded: “ Council is composed of volunteers who devote countless hours to the CTSA’s Members and furtherance of its goals. The decisions

reached with respect to your clients were not reached lightly, and were only made after careful and difficult deliberations, and with the advice of legal counsel. The council has done its best act “professionally” in difficult circumstances, and I am confident that any litigation should your clients choose to pursue it, will conclude that the CTSA acted reasonably and in good faith, in arriving at its decisions.”

68Unfortunately, Morland did not follow through to seek proper administrative law remedies through a Court Application, as indicated in Mr. Masterman’s demand letter. Such proceedings would have been the proper remedy legal to address his allegations that he was improperly removed as a Director and Member of CTSA; to address his demands that he be reinstated, and for a Judicial Review of the actions of the CTSA. If he had done so, the current actions that are before the Small Claims Court, in my view would have been avoided.

69It is not for this Court to provide an alternative for a Judicial Review Application, This Court has no jurisdiction to make Declaratory Orders to determine if Morland was properly removed from the Executive Council and as a Member of CTSA, based on his refusal to follow the decisions of the Executive Council and their specific direction to co-operate and work together with the other Members of the Council.

70It is not known why Morland did not proceed with an Application in the Superior Court of Justice, seeking Judicial Review providing for Declaratory and Mandatory Orders supporting his allegations that he was improperly removed as a Director and Member of CTSA, as was done in a case with similar factual background Hannan v. Scouts Canada, [2024] ONSC 5361. In any event, he chose not to do so and then commenced a campaign by way of emails, telephone conversations, and a written Formal Complaint, calling for an investigation into Smith’s conduct as National Commissioner, which communications were then made to third parties outside of the Directors on the Executive Council. It is these communications which form the main allegations of defamation in Smith’s and Griffiths’ Claims.

Morland’s telephone call to Erin Rakita on February 20, 2021

71Erin Rakita is Smith’s daughter. She was not a member of CTSA at the time Morland made a telephone call to her on February 20, 2021. Ms. Rakita filed an Affidavit in these proceedings (Exhibit 1, Plaintiffs’ Document Brief, Tab T) and was cross-examined on it at the trial of this action. The call from Morland was unsolicited, and she had no previous involvement with or knowledge of Morland’s removal from CTSA. Her evidence indicated that Morland had implied that her father had “mental health” problems that were affecting his judgment. He also told Ms. Rakita that her father was being “bossed around” by Griffiths, who was “unfit” to be a Scout leader, and that the two of them were running the CTSA “to serve their own agenda”.

72She found the phone call upsetting, and was not previously aware of any of the events that Morland told her about her father and Griffiths. She was not even aware that her father had taken a leave of absence from CTSA in the Fall of 2020 for depression.

73It is hard to understand why Morland would call Ms. Rakita to involve her in his dispute with CTSA, but it was her evidence that she formed the impression that Morland wanted her to talk to her father about his phone call. When Morland was asked about the phone call, on his cross-examination, he denied wanting her to intervene on his behalf, and stated that he was only concerned about Smith’s mental health. He denied the statements attributed to him by Ms. Rakita, and stated she was lying to support her father and Griffiths. He further denied saying that Griffiths was unfit to be a Scout leader and further denied that he stated she was improperly bossing her dad around.

74I have no hesitation in accepting the evidence of Ms. Rakita where it conflicts with Morland’s. I have no reason to doubt her credibility as a witness, and my observation was that she was genuinely upset by the phone call, and did not understand the reason why Morland would involve her in his dispute with Smith, Griffiths, and CTSA.

Morland’s Email of June 14, 2021 Sent to Kevin Wood, Nancy Uhlarik & Ryan Clifford

75Morland sent an email to three members of CTSA, Kevin Wood, Nancy Uhlarik and Ryan Clifford, who were not Members of the Executive Council, on June 14, 2021, as well as other unidentified individuals making numerous allegations against CTSA and Smith in particular (Exhibit 1, Plaintiffs’ Document Brief, Tab K). Morland wrote that “CTSA used made-up, obviously false charges” to kick Graham and Howard out of CTSA, when in reality, Howard had been given the opportunity to rejoin, but decided not to. Moreland also knew at the time that the reasons for the suspensions was as a result of the paintball event, which he did not mention. He further wrote, “No one is safe in a Scouting Association run on lies and bullying.” He maintained on his cross-examination that the statements in the emails were true, and that the reference to the two people running the CTSA on lies and bullying were Smith and Griffiths.

Notice of Libel – July 12, 2021

76Sheldon Inkol as counsel for CTSA, sent Morland a Notice of Libel on July 12, 2021, which included demands that Morland cease and desist from making any additional defamatory statements about the CTSA, the National Commissioner, or any Members of the Executive Council. The Notice further demanded that he retract the statements made in his email to WFIS, send a written retraction to all parents who received the defamatory statements set out in the Notice of Libel, and refrain from any further contact with the CTSA Executive or CTSA Members directly. (Exhibit 1, Plaintiffs’ Document Brief, Tab L). The cease and desist letter refers back to an earlier email sent by Morland to Smith on July 3, 2021, which can be perceived as threatening based on the following wording:

“What do you think the Members of our association are going to think when they learn what is being done in their name? Our mistreatment will not be a secret. Many Members of our association left Scouts Canada to get away from exactly the kind of mistreatment Jim, Kristen and I are getting now. Being an adult means access to the Court system for legal remedies. The media loves to shed light on corrupt behaviour, particularly in Scouting.

Some CTSA Directors have violated their codes of professional conduct. We

haven’t decided what the next step is, but quiet acceptance will not be it.”

77Mr. Inkol, in his letter referenced the email as “nothing less than a threat of reprisal through a campaign of libel and slander”, and provided Morland with an opportunity to undo the alleged damage he had done by retracting the alleged defamatory statements, and warning that failure to do so would result in legal action, seeking aggravated and punitive damages. for the harm caused to Smith’s reputation as National Commissioner.

78Morland ignored the Notice of Libel letter, and on July 22, 2021, again contacted Smith directly to suggest using a mediator or arbitrator to reach a resolution, and indicating that he was deeply concerned about the false and defamatory things that had been said about him, in particular by Griffiths.

79On October 15, 2021, Griffiths authorized by the Executive Council after they discovered two CTSA Member parents had mistakenly paid their Membership fees to Morland’s new Scouting organization instead of CTSA as intended, had emailed CTSA Member parents to let them know that “a former CTSA Member was soliciting Membership registrations under the name, SWR, and stating that such solicitations were not authorized to use SWR or to contact CTSA Members.

The Formal Complaint

80Within 30 minutes of Griffith’s email of October 15^th, 2021 being sent, Morland emailed a document entitled Formal Complaint Against Ernest Roderick (Rod) Smith (the “Formal Complaint”) to the Executive Council (Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Brief, Tab P). In addition to sending it to the Executive Council, Morland also emailed it to a former Member of the Executive Council, Timothy Cowan whose email was no longer in use and which was received by a new Member who had taken over that email address and who confirmed that she had read the Formal Complaint before forwarding it to Tracy Conaghan, who in turn forwarded the email to Smith, Griffiths, and Durham, copying the Oxford Traditional Scouting (“OTS”) Moderator, stating:

“This letter raises some serious concerns regarding the safety of our youth, the integrity of the organization, and the conduct of our National Commissioner. These allegations are concerning to me as the current Acting Auditor of the association’s financial statements, as well as the Group Scouter for OTS, who attends camps with youth where Rod is present and the alleged leadership or parent of the inappropriate touching.”

81Ms. Conaghan, who had filed an Affidavit in the proceedings and was cross-examined at trial, testified that she reacted to the Formal Complaint with panic and concern, and that she took it very seriously.

82Morland forwarded the Formal Complaint to Timothy Cowan at OTS, which then was forwarded to Tracy Conaghan, the group Scouter for OTS, was completely inappropriate, and reckless, given his knowledge that Timothy Cowan was no longer a Director of CTSA’s Executive Council.

83There are 14 specific allegations/complaints specified by Morland in the Formal Complaint. The most serious issues and which I have determined are clearly defamatory, state that Smith:

(a) Had failed to take appropriate action on reports of inappropriate touching of a child;

(b) Had failed to ensure adults had submitted police record checks;

(c) Had signed cheques “without authorization”;

(d) Had spread false and defamatory information about a Member of the Association;

(e) Had convened a fake group meeting and submitted false banking documents.

84The allegations and complaints that Smith in his role as National Commissioner, did not properly investigate the inappropriate touching of a child and had failed to ensure adults had submitted police record checks, is particularly troubling, given the well-known problems experienced by Scouts Canada and its failure to properly investigate such historical sex abuse claims, which caused tremendous upheaval in the Scouting movement in Canada and lead to the creation of new Scouting organizations such as CTSA.

85What is even more troubling, however, is that Morland’s alleged complaints I find were motivated by his seeking retribution, attempting to cause trouble for Smith, and purposely negatively impacting his longstanding reputation in Scouting, as a result of Smith’s failure to use his influence to rescind Morland’s removal as a Director of the Executive Council.

86In corroborating my finding of the improper motive behind Morland filing the Formal Complaint is that the allegation of Smith not taking appropriate action to investigate reports of inappropriate touching is based on underlying facts which occurred in 2018, when Morland himself was a Director of the Executive Council and had knowledge of these allegations but did nothing himself to deal with them and raised no concerns . Similarly, the records check issue that Morland complains about that Smith was not undertaking his duties properly, relates to information from an Executive Council meeting on February 29, 2020 that Morland himself had attended where the issue was discussed an a plan to deal with it was agreed to. It is significant that Morland made no previous complaints about these matters raised in his Formal Complaint. The other complaints are simply a repeat in more formalized fashion of his previous emails and position that he had been unlawfully removed, contrary to the by-laws and PO & R of CTSA, which he then failed to address by way of exercising his proper legal remedies. It is also significant that the Formal Complaint forwarded to Members of the Executive Council and others was done following Smith’s and CTSA’s lawyer’s cease and desist letter that had been sent to Morland on July 12, 2021.

87I accept the evidence that CTSA investigated the Formal Complaint by a Committee and issued an internal report responding to the 14 complaints. This investigation and report was not shared with Morland, who was not on the Executive or even a CTSA Member at the time it was completed, and which was in keeping with CTSA policy regarding the confidentiality of the complaint process, as testified to by Ken Weir.

88Morland followed up on the Formal Complaint by an email to Executive Council Member, Lisa Breman, on November 26, 2021 (Exhibit 1, Document Brief of the Plaintiffs, Tab R), complaining that it had been a month since he sent the Formal Complaint about “Rod Smith’s misconduct”, and that it was a “serious matter for the Executive Council to ignore a complaint like this”. Lisa Breman in forwarding this email to the other Members of the Executive Council, stated that she had not replied, but did not think it was a “coincidence” that Morland’s email was sent on November 26^th, two days before the scheduled CTSA AGM.

89Morland in his cross-examination, acknowledged that all of the complaints in his Formal Complaint were made 10 months after he had been “kicked out of CTSA” but denied that the Formal Complaint was a “reprisal”. He acknowledged that his follow up to Lisa Breman was done on the eve of the CTSA AGM, but stated it was important that “she knows what’s going on” and that maybe “she would join the new Scouting organization that he was organizing”.

V. ANALYSIS AND THE LAW

The Law of Defamation

90Both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant agree that in order to establish a claim for defamation, the Plaintiff is required to prove three things:

(a) That the impugned words were defamatory, in the sense that they would tend to

lower the Plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person;

(b) That the words in fact refer to the Plaintiff; and

(c) If these elements are established on a balance of probabilities, falsity and damages are presumed. The Plaintiff is not required to show the Defendant intended to do harm, or even that the Defendant was careless. The tort is one of strict liability. Reputational harm is not required to establish defamation, but there must be “a realistic threat that the statement, in its full context, would reduce a reasonable person’s opinion of the Plaintiff.”:

Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61, at para.28 and

Bent v. Platnick, 2020 SCC 23, at paras. 28 and 96

91An issue in these actions is whether or not the emails sent by Morland that do not specifically name Smith or Morland can be defamatory. A defamatory statement is one which has a tendency to lower the reputation of a person in the eyes of “right-thinking” members of society generally, and in particular, to cause that person to be regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike, or disesteem:

WIC Radio Limited v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40 at para 67

92A Plaintiff does not need to be expressly named in the publication or expression. The test is whether an ordinary, sensible person would reasonably understand that the words refer to the Plaintiff:

S.G. v. J.C., 2001 3041 (ONCA) at paras. 19-20

For example, with respect to the WFIS email, the individual who received it at WFIS clearly knew that Morland’s complaints referred to Smith and Griffiths, since they only copied Smith and Griffiths in their reply to Morland.

93The Courts have recognized the importance of achieving a proper balance between the protection of an individual’s reputation and the equally important right of freedom of expression. As recently reiterated by the Court of Appeal, the purpose of protecting freedom of expression is to “ensure that everyone can manifest their thoughts, opinions, beliefs, indeed all expressions of heart and mind, however unpopular, distasteful, or contrary to the main stream.” However, a person’s reputation may be their most valued asset and the Court of Appeal has also noted that the publication of defamatory comments constitutes “an invasion of the individual’s personal privacy and is an afront to that person’s dignity.”:

Benchwood Builders, Inc. v. Prescott, 2025 (ONCA) 171 at paras. 21-22

94Having reviewed the extensive caselaw briefs provided by counsel, it is clear that each defamation action is unique, and the factual background to each action is extremely important. It is the context that is important in determining the meaning of words and whether they are capable of being defamatory.

95It is the Plaintiff’s onus to meet, in establishing on the balance of probabilities the three required factors as established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Grant, supra. Once the test, however, for defamation is met, the onus then shifts to the Defendants to establish a defence to the defamation.

96There are strict pleading requirements for a defamation claim. The words complained of must be identified, together with their alleged defamatory meaning and any alleged inuendo arising from them. I am satisfied, having reviewed all of the pleadings, that the Plaintiffs have met the technical requirements for a defamation claim.

97Morland made numerous defamatory statements about Smith and Griffiths, which are set out in detail in Schedules “A” and “B” to these Reasons. In summary, I find that the defamatory statements about Smith, as particularized in the emails, telephone conversations, and the Formal Complaint were in fact defamatory in their meaning, and were intended to mean that Smith:

(a) Had removed Morland from the Executive Council as a reprisal against Morland;

(b) Improperly stayed in office without an election after the expiration of his term of office;

(c) Did not care about following the rules;

(d) Was suffering from mental health problems that impaired his ability to run CTSA;

(e) Was being manipulated by Griffiths;

(f) Was using CTSA to serve his own agenda;

(g) Had kicked Morland out of CTSA for no reason;

(h) Was spreading falsehoods and defamatory information;

(i) Acted unlawfully;

(j) Ignored due process;

(k) Presented a danger to Members of CTSA and ran CTSA on lies and bullying;

(l) Was going after the kids directly by taking away their programs;

(m) Was dishonest;

(n) Failed to take appropriate action on reports of inappropriate touching of a child;

(o) Failed to properly carry out his duties as National Commissioner;

(p) Signed cheques without authorization; and

(q) Submitted false banking documents.

98Taken as a whole, all of these statements arose in the context of Morland’s campaign to overturn his removal as a Director of the CTSA and eventually his removal as a member of CTSA. I find Morland’s campaign to seek retribution against Smith was improperly motivated by what he perceived was Smith’s failure to intervene and to have him reinstated as a Director of the Executive Council, and as a Member of CTSA. Many of the statements looked at individually can be characterized as perhaps improper complaints within a private volunteer organization, arising out of legitimate disagreement on the interpretation of by- laws and CTSA’s PO&R, but many of the statements alleging dishonesty, bullying, lying, cover-up and failing to act appropriately in his duties as National Commissioner go way beyond triggering the application of the defences of justification, qualified privilege, and fair comment, that I will address in detail below.

99In summary, the detailed defamatory statements about Griffiths, set out in Schedule “B” to

these Reasons, I find meant and were intended to mean that she:

(a) Had acted illegally as a Director of CTSA;

(b) Had removed Morland from the Executive Council as a reprisal against him;

(c) Did not care about following proper rules;

(d) Failed to ask CTSA members to remove the WFIS badge from their uniforms, and in fact, instructed members to wear the WFIS badges;

(e) Had acted in an undemocratic fashion;

(f) Did not follow the law and ignored due process;

(g) Was manipulating Smith as an instrument to run CTSA according to her own personal agenda;

(h) Was unfit as a Scout leader;

(i) Presented a danger to members of CTSA and ran CTSA on lies and bullying;

(j) Was a liar and spread false information.

100The overall context of these statements and communications by Morland was defamatory to Griffiths.

101Having found that Morland published these statements and made these communications that are defamatory and harmful to Smith and Morland’s reputation as respected leaders in the Scouting movement in Canada, then falsities and damages are presumed, and the onus now shifts to Morland to advance an appropriate available defences of justification, truth, qualified privilege and fair comment, to escape liability.

Defence of Justification/Truth

102A Defendant must rebut the presumption of falsity, and the burden is on the Defendant to adduce evidence showing that the statement was substantially true. However, the defence of justification must fail if the words complained of are shown “to have contained only accurate facts, but the sting of the libel is not shown to be true”. The sting is the “main thrust” of a defamation. Partial truth is not a defence, but a Defendant may justify part of the libel if it is “separate and self-contained” rather than an “ingredient or part of a connected whole”.

Bent v. Platnick, 2020 SCC 23 at paras. 107-108

103The problem that Morland has and the reason I am rejecting his defence of justification is that while there may be some partial truth to his allegations that CTSA did not technically follow the exact provisions of its by-laws and PO&R, the main “thrust” of his defamation are the personal slanderous and defamatory statements against Smith and Griffiths as part of his retribution against them in his campaign for reinstatement. When that campaign failed he doubled down to specifically harm them, by making further defamatory statements against them which he knew or ought to have known would cause them reputational damage within the Scouting community.

104For example, while it may be true that Rod Smith stayed in office without an election at the 2020 AGM, there was a valid reason for him to do so based on advice from CTSA’s corporate counsel, and which Morland knew was the reason due to the changeover in the corporate reorganization. When Morland wrote to WFIS that the Executive “did not hold any elections” and that Rod Smith and others stayed in their positions, the sting of libel was the implication that Smith had subverted democracy by improperly staying in office. This implication is cemented by Morland immediately following his statement by adding “the Association is no longer a democratic organization”.

105Similarly, Morland has not met the onus of showing that Griffiths personally removed him from the Executive as a reprisal or that she was running the CTSA on “lies and bullying”, or that she had failed to ask CTSA members to remove the WFIS emblem. On the contrary, she had “approved two new handbooks which instructed members not to wear this emblem”. The evidence established that these statements to Morland’s knowledge, were simply untrue, based on his attendance at the November 2020 AGM of CTSA, where Griffiths specifically told the members not to wear the WFIS badges.

Qualified Privilege

106The Supreme Court of Canada in Bent v. Platnick, supra dealt extensively with the defence of qualified privilege, and is instructive in determining whether Morland’s pleaded defence of qualified privilege applies.

107An occasion of qualified privilege exists if a person making a communication has “an interest or duty, legal, social, moral, or personal, to publish the information in issue to the person to whom it is published, and the recipient has a “corresponding interest or duty to receive it”. Importantly, qualified privilege attaches to the occasion upon which the communication is made and not to the communication itself. Where the occasion is shown to be privileged, “the Defendant is free to publish or state, with impunity, remarks which may be defamatory and untrue about the Plaintiff”. However, the privilege is qualified in the sense that it can be defeated. This can occur particularly in two situations, firstly, where the dominant motive behind the words was malice, such as where the speaker was reckless as to the truth of the word spoken or is stating them for an improper purpose; or, secondly, where the scope of the occasion of privilege was exceeded.

108It is the precise characterization of the “occasion” that is essential in order to determine whether the occasion was exceeded or abused. I cannot see how the email to Michael Cornish, the telephone conversation with Erin Rakita, or the emails to WFIS or releasing the Formal Complaint outside of the Directors of the Executive Council, can be shielded as being reasonably appropriate to the legitimate purposes of the occasion. I find that the scope of any qualified privilege outside of the initial emails or comments to the Executive Council, exceeded an occasion of qualified privilege or that Morland had “an interest or duty, legal, social, moral, or personal to make the impugned statements.

109In any event, any potential qualified privilege defence which might have applied at the time Morland was removed from the Executive Council or when he was removed as a Member of CTSA was defeated by what I have found to be malice or the improper motive of

Morland in making these comments and communications, which then exceeded or abused the scope of any privilege:

Thatcher-Craig v. Clearview (Township) 2023 ONCA 96 at para. 26

110As held in Bent, supra, the scope of qualified privilege is exceeded when the comments in question are not necessary or appropriate. If it is “unnecessary to defame”, the Plaintiff when making a statement, the privilege will be defeated. It is one thing to complain that he was improperly removed as a Director and Member of the Executive Council in CTSA, but when despite warnings, he continued his campaign by making personal attacks against Smith and Griffiths as “liars and bullies”, who were spreading “falsehoods”, and are “dishonest”, than any previous scope of the privilege was exceeded or abused.

111It is settled law that qualified privilege will be lost if the Plaintiff proves that the dominant motive for publishing the defamatory expression is actionable or express malice. Examples of actual express malice include:

(a) Spite or ill will;

(b) Any indirect motive or ulterior purpose which conflicts with the occasion;

(c) Speaking dishonestly or with knowing or reckless disregard for the truth:

Kanick v. Riggan, 2017 ONSC 2837 at para. 32, affirmed 2018 ONCA

345

112I find that the defence of qualified privilege is defeated for three reasons. Firstly, many of Morland’s statements were made to inappropriate recipients, i.e. WFIS, Mike Cornish, and Erin Rakita. Secondly, the information communicated by Morland “was not reasonably appropriate” to the legitimate purposes of the occasion. Morland included in his emails to WFIS and others, comments that were completely inappropriate. Thirdly, it was “unnecessary to defame” the Plaintiffs in making the statement. It was open to Morland to make measured statements when contacting others about his alleged grievances. He could have stated that he disagreed with the decision to remove him from the executive council and believed that the By Laws were not being followed but instead he went far beyond that to portrait Smith and Griffiths as liars and bullies making such volatile statements as “this is a dangerous time for everyone in our Association and no one is safe in a scouting association run on lies and bullying”

Fair Comment

113The defence of fair comment has five elements:

(a) The comment must be on a matter of public interest;

(b) The comment must be based on facts;

(c) The comment, though it can include inferences of fact, must be recognizable as comments;

(d) The comment must satisfy the objective test; could any person honestly express that opinion on the proved facts; and

(e) Even though the comment satisfies the objective test, the defence can be defeated if the Plaintiff proves that the Defendant was subjectively actuated by express malice.

Grant v. Torstar, supra at para. 31 and WIC Radio, supra at para. 28

114The Courts have interpreted matters of public interest broadly. The expression need not be one that is of interest to the world at large to be a matter of public interest. In is enough that some segment of the community would have a general interest in the subject line of the expression.

115In determining whether the public interest requirement in establishing the defence of fair comment has been met, the decision of Justice Nishikawa in Walsh v. Badin, 2019 ONSC 689, 2019 ONCS 689 is helpful. In the Walsh case, there was a claim for defamation that arose from three letters distributed to the residences of the Condominiums which made allegations against Directors, former Directors and a former Candidate for the Board that among other things, alleged that the Plaintiff had been receiving kickbacks from contractors, denying unit owners access to records and interfering with Board elections. Letters also contained allegations that the former President of the Board was a liar who sent out improper Proxy forms and instructions, engaged in criminal activities and kept pictures of minor children from security cameras. The defamatory letters alleged corruption and dishonesty on the part of the Plaintiffs and a failure to act honestly and in good faith in accordance with their statutory obligations as Directors. Justice Nishikawa concluded that the letters that had been sent to the condominium residents as described above did not relate to any matter of public interest. The Court held that the operation and governance of the condo Board did not bear any of the characteristics that the Supreme Court of Canada had determined attracted public attention, affect the welfare of citizens or attract considerable controversy. The fact that the concerns raised were legitimate or important to the condo residents did not mean that they relate to a matter of public interest. The matters are more accurately characterized as a private interest, albeit one that might be held by a number of individuals. The Court concluded that the internal governance and proper functioning of condominium Board may be of significant interest to the residents of the condominium but it is not a matter of public interest.

116I, therefore, find that any legitimate concerns raised by Morland with respect to his removal as a Director from the Executive Council and as a member of CTSA were not matters of public interest and are more accurately characterized as a private interest with respect to the members of CTSA. Rather than dealing with the issues through proper processes and an Application for Judicial Review, Morland took matters into his own hands drafting and sending defamatory emails and engaging in what I find was improper and unjustified behaviour.

117In McCarthy-Oppedisano v. Mutry, 2018 ONSC 2136 para. 48, Justice Healey stated “I do not accept that the law seeks to allow immunity from liability for an elected member of a voluntary organization who embeds defamatory comments within political, economic or social commentary that touches upon matters of public interest”.

118There are numerous instances where the Court of Appeal has determined that certain disputes were not a matter of public interest such as an employee posting an online review of an internal workplace, a client posting an unflattering opinion about her lawyer online and a client posting a review on Facebook that includes allegations of fraud against a dental company.

119Even if I am wrong in my conclusion that Morland has not established a defence of fair comment then such defence can be defeated by the Plaintiff proving malice. Proof of malice “may be drawn from the language of the assertion itself and from circumstances surrounding the publication of the comment”:

WIC Radio Limited v. Simpson, supra

120As stated in the WIC Radio Limited decision, malice “is not limited to spite or ill-will” but “includes any indirect motive or ulterior purpose, and will be established if the Plaintiff can prove the Defendant was not acting honestly when he established the comment. This will depend on all of the circumstances of the case”. I have already made a factual finding that Morland’s main motivation in the communications following his removal as a Director of ECC was improper and for the ulterior purpose of pressuring Smith and Griffiths to re- instate him as a Director and which then later turned into retribution for their failure to intervene with the Executive Council on his behalf.

Damages

121In cases of liable, slander and defamation, damages are presumed and awarded at large. Harm to reputation is presumed from mere publication of the defamatory statements. The law assumes that the Plaintiff’s reputation and character are unblemished unless the contrary is proven. No proof of special damage or actual injury is required. In this case, I found as a fact that both Smith and Griffiths had excellent reputations within both the local and national Scouting communities. I accept that substantial damages are not presumed and that the onus is on the Plaintiff to elicit evidence establishing the measure of damages and on the Defendant to offer evidence in mitigation. I do not accept, however, the submissions of Defendant’s counsel that damages in this case should be nominal. An award must fully compensate the Plaintiffs for the injury done, serve as an example and a deterrent to others and in appropriate cases, punish the Defendant for their wrongdoing;

MacRae v. Santa, 2006 32920 (ONSC) at para. 34.

122In MacRae, Regional Senior Justice McCartney while acknowledging that each case depends on its own specific facts provided a summary of a number of cases showing the quantum of damages in defamation claims. The factors that determine the quantum of compensatory damages for the Court to consider include:

(a) The impact on the Plaintiff;

(b) The Defendants’ conduct before the defamation;

(c) The Defendants’ conduct at the time of publication;

(d) The Defendants’ conduct after publication; and

(e) The Plaintiffs’ reputation and conduct.

123I find on the evidence and in assessing the Plaintiffs’ when they gave their evidence that

the defamatory statements had a significant impact on both of them.

124Both Smith and Griffiths have spent most of their lives trying to build the Scouting movement which places a premium on the values of honesty and integrity. While not formally admitted, even Morland agreed that both Plaintiffs had exemplary reputations prior to the events that lead to his publication of his statements. In the Fall of 2020, Smith was going through a difficult time and took a leave of absence from his role as the National Commissioner with CTSA.

125The phone call to his daughter, Erin Rakita, came at a time when he was working on establishing his new relationship with Griffiths and added to his stress. He testified that he felt resentment from others in CTSA that he was somehow responsible for what had happened and was of the view that he had lost some of his credibility. He was upset at being called a liar and accused of acting illegally which was difficult to deal with when some of the people receiving Morland’s communications did not even know Smith personally. I accept the evidence of Ken Weir who testified that several members of the executive counsel began to question Smith’s decisions after receiving the Formal Complaint and follow up email from Morland just prior to the 2021 AGM. Concerns were raised about Smith’s integrity at meetings and various events that Weir had specific knowledge of. Smith testified that he has had to “work very hard” to regain people’s trust.

126Griffiths although her involvement and history with the Scouting movement had not been as long as Morland’s also gave evidence that Morland’s statements diminished what she had achieved in her life and caused others to doubt her. She now felt that she had to provide proof of her honesty. Some people who used to call her “Scouter Mom” stopped doing so and that was particularly distressing. She testified that the situation also affected her new relationship with Smith and that her relationship with his daughter, Erin Rakita, who did not yet know her very well was at an early stage when Morland made his comments about her “bossing” Smith around. She gave evidence as a result of the upheaval caused by Morland’s conduct and statements about her within CTSA that had on occasions caused her to cry herself to sleep.

127It is significant in my assessment of damages that Morland has never apologized. Even in the face of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s cease and desist letter, he continued his campaign of defamatory statements. He has refused to retract any of those statements and continued making such statements doubling down during the trial maintaining that all of his statements were true including those that the evidence proved were false.

128As held by the Ontario Court of Appeal in James Bay Resources Limited v. Mak Mera Nigeria Limited, 2025 ONCA 448 para. 122, the repetition of defamation by way of an unsuccessful plea of justification as part of a defence may, in fact, aggravate the damages of an individual because it perpetuates hurt feelings and humiliation.

129In assessing all of the evidence, the reputational harm to both Smith and Griffiths and the affect that Morland’s defamatory statements had on them, I have considered in MacCrae, a 20 year old case, that Justice McCartney considered $25,000.00 in compensatory damages to the Plaintiff as being “at the low end of the range of damages” and that Deputy Judge Walker in Wesley v. Jakubec, 2017 55420 (ONSCSM), an 8 year old case, awarded compensatory damages to the Plaintiff albeit in a Damage Assessment Hearing of

$25,000.00. Updating for inflation and considering the specific facts in this case I consider a proper assessment of Smith’s compensatory general damages to be $30,000.00 and Griffiths to be $20,000.00. The higher damage assessment for Smith is based on his position at the time the defamatory statements were made as National Commissioner of CTSA, his higher profile in the Scouting organization given his longer history and the malicious and improper purpose directed solely against him by Morland’s Formal Complaint.

130In addition, I find that Morland’s Formal Complaint against Smith and specifically his allegation that Smith had failed to appropriately investigate the inappropriate touching of a child three years earlier was so egregious and improperly motivated that Morland would have known that Smith would suffer additional humiliation and anxiety which justify an award of aggravated, punitive and exemplary damages in the nature of punishment for such oppressive reprehensible conduct. I, therefore, award an additional amount of $5,000.00 to Smith in the nature of punishment for Morland’s reprehensible conduct.

VI. CONCLUSION AND ORDERS

131The Plaintiff, Smith, will be entitled to Judgment as follows:

(a) General damages for defamation to be paid by the Defendant, Morland, in the amount of $30,000.00;

(b) Explementary, aggravated and punitive damages in the amount of $5,000.00 to be paid by the Defendant, Morland;

(c) Pre-judgment interest on the general damages only calculated at the Courts of Justice Act, Section 128 rate of 1.8% calculated from October 20, 2021 being the date of the culmination of Morland’s previous defamatory statements embodied in his Formal Complaint; and

(d) Costs as agreed upon or to be determined by further Order of the Court.

132The Plaintiff, Griffiths, will be entitled to Judgment as follows:

(a) General damages in the amount of $20,000.00 to be paid by the Defendant, Morland;

(b) Pre-judgment interest at the Courts of Justice Act rate of 1.8% calculated from October 20, 2021 which coincides with the date of the Formal Complaint by Morland against Smith and although it did not specially mention Griffiths was the culmination of his campaign of defamatory statements made against them both and is a convenient starting point for the calculation of pre-judgment interest to accrue rather than trying to categorize a separate calculation of pre-judgment for Griffiths based on the WFIS email and the other defamatory emails sent by Morland during 2020 and 2021; and

(c) Costs as agreed upon or to be determined by further Order of the Court.

VII. COSTS

133Based on the costs provisions set out in Section 29 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rules 14 and 19 of the Small Claims Court Rules, absent any agreement between the parties, counsel may serve and file Written Submissions on the issue of costs in each action. Those Cost Submissions should be limited to four pages in total dealing with both actions that were tried together exclusive of Bills of Costs and Offers to Settle and should be served and filed in accordance with the following timetable:

(a) The Plaintiffs’ Costs Submissions are to be served within 20 business days of the

release of these Reasons; and

(b) The Defendant shall thereafter have an additional 15 business days from the receipt of the Plaintiffs’ Costs Submissions to serve and file his responding Costs Submissions.

Date: March 10, 2026

SCHEDULE "A"

DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS ABOUT ROD SMITH

• "The association is having serious governance problems." (email to WFIS -

Document Brief of the Plaintiffs, Tab F)

• "I pointed out 12 different errors in the report. As a reprisal for pointing out these errors, they declared that I was no longer a director. The Acting Commissioner, Marnie Ferguson, told me that I was removed as a director because I pointed out the errors in their report." (email to WFIS)

• "So, the directors have illegally added a director and illegally removed another. I have tried to speak with the directors to resolve this problem, but they refuse to speak with me." (email to WFIS)

• "They did not hold any elections. Instead, Rod Smith and the others stayed in their positions." (email to WFIS)

• "The problem seems to be that they don't care about following rules." (email to WFIS)

• "Mr. Morland implied that my father had mental health problems that were affecting his judgment in running the organization." (according to Erin Rakita - Document Brief of the Plaintiffs, Tab T)

• "He was asking me questions about CTSA matters that I didn't know anything about and then telling me all his complaints about how my father and Kim were running the organization to serve their own agenda." (according to Erin Rakita)

• "There is a big problem in CTSA. Rod Smith is trying to kick me out of the association. He has given me no reason and has said that there is no concern about anything I have done in my troop." (email to Mike Cornish - Document Brief of the Plaintiffs, Tab G)

• "It has become clear that this is a reprisal. Some people on Executive Council wanted to add someone to Exec. without an election. This is unlawful." (email to to Mike Cornish)

• "I spoke out against this and was told I was no longer a member of Exec. They did not lawfully remove me." (email to Mike Cornish)

• "I spoke out against that and was told I was no longer a member of the association. Again, they did not lawfully remove me." (email to Mike Cornish)

• "They are also spreading falsehoods, apparently trying to turn members of my group against me." (email to Mike Cornish)

• "This is a dangerous time for everyone in our association. Rod and the others ignored due process and our bylaws and policies. If they can get away with doing this to me, they'll do it to anyone." (email to Mike Cornish)

• "It started when Rod Smith wanted to add someone to Executive Council. Under the bylaws, that could only be done by election at a general meeting. But Rod wanted to just do it without any vote. I pointed out that this was unlawful. As a reprisal, I was kicked-off Executive Council." (email to Kevin Wood, Ryan Clifford, Nancy Uhlarik, and unidentified others - Document Brief of the Plaintiffs, Tab K)

• "When I spoke out against this, I was kicked-out of the entire CTSA. Again they did not follow the bylaws. Jim and Kristin started asking questions about what was going on. They were kicked-out as well. CTSA used made-up, obviously false charges and failed to give due process." (email to Kevin Wood, Ryan Clifford, Nancy Uhlarik, and unidentified others)

• "It's bad enough to go after me. But he also is going after Jim and Kristin, parents helping to make Scouting happen for their kids. He has gone after the kids directly by trying to take away their program. He cancelled our insurance coverage, blocked access to our bank account, tried to take away our equipment, and spread falsehoods." (email to Kevin Wood, Ryan Clifford, Nancy Uhlarik, and unidentified others)

• "No one is safe in a Scouting association run on lies and bullying. Whistle blowers must be protected. Everyone must have due process." (email to Kevin Wood, Ryan Clifford, Nancy Uhlarik, and unidentified others)

• "If Rod Smith or anyone else tells you something that doesn't fit with what I have written here, please let me know so I can correct the record." (email to Kevin Wood, Ryan Clifford, Nancy Uhlarik, and unidentified others)

• "Attached is a formal complaint of misconduct regarding Rod Smith... Many of these issues could have been resolved by respectful conversations and a willingness to operate within the law. It is unfortunate that did not happen. I offered to talk. I offered mediation. I offered arbitration. All were refused." (email to Executive Council of CTSA, including Tracy Conaghan, and unidentified "new member" - Document Brief of the Plaintiffs, Tab Q)

• "Formal complaint against Ernest Roderick (Rod) Smith" in its entirety

(Document Brief of the Plaintiffs, Tab P)

• Failed to take appropriate action on reports of inappropriate touching of a child

• Failed to ensure adults had submitted Police Record Checks

• Failed to implement COVID-19 law

• Cancelled the Association's insurance

• Added a person to Executive Council without an election

• Added a non-member to as a director

• Signed cheques without authorization

• Unlawfully removed a person as a director of the Association

• Failed to follow policy regarding member suspensions

• Failed to convene a general meeting to hear appeals

• Unlawfully expelled members of the Association

• Spread false and defamatory information about a member of the Association

• Convened a fake group meeting and submitted false banking documents

• Stayed in office after the expiration of his term of office

SCHEDULE "B"

DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS ABOUT KIMBERLY GRIFFITHS

• "The association is having serious governance problems." (email to WFIS -

Document Brief of the Plaintiffs, Tab F)

• "I pointed out 12 different errors in the report. As a reprisal for pointing out these errors, they declared that I was no longer a director. The Acting Commissioner, Marnie Ferguson, told me that I was removed as a director because I pointed out the errors in their report." (email to WFIS)

• "So, the directors have illegally added a director and illegally removed another. have tried to speak with the directors to resolve this problem, but they refuse to speak with me." (email to WFIS)

• "The problem seems to be that they don't care about following rules." (email to WFIS)

• "As you know, the association did not stop wearing the WFIS emblem, as required of a provisional member. The association did not even ask its members to remove the emblem. As well, in recent months, the association approved two new handbooks which instruct members to wear the WFIS emblem." (email to WFIS)

• "I hope WFIS will be able to help our association understand that they need to be democratic and follow the law." (email to WFIS)

• "Mr. Morland also suggested that Kim was 'bossing him around' and basically using my father as an instrument to run the organization for her own personal agenda." (according to Erin Rakita - Document Brief of the Plaintiffs, Tab T)

• "He implied that Kim was somehow unfit to be a scout leader because Kim's son had been involved in some mischief as a teenager." (according to Erin Rakita)

• "He was asking me questions about CTSA matters that I didn't know anything about and then telling me all his complaints about how my father and Kim were running the organization to serve their own agenda." (according to Erin Rakita)

• "This is a dangerous time for everyone in our association. Rod and the others ignored due process and our bylaws and policies. If they can get away with doing this to me, they'll do it to anyone." (email to Mike Cornish - Document Brief of the Plaintiffs, Tab G)

• "No one is safe in a Scouting association run on lies and bullying. Whistle blowers must be protected. Everyone must have due process." (email to Kevin Wood, Ryan Clifford, Nancy Uhlarik, and unidentified others - Document Brief of the Plaintiffs, Tab K)

• "In addition, Kimberly Griffiths told numerous lies about me at gatherings of Scouters from Waterloo Region, apparently in an attempt to defame me in front of my peers." (email to Rod Smith, Jim Graham, Kristin Howard - Document Brief of the Plaintiffs, Tab J)

• "I am also deeply concerned about the false and defamatory things that have been said about me, in particular, by Kimberly Griffiths." (email to Rod Smith - Document Brief of the Plaintiffs, Tab N)

• "Currently, CTSA is not operating in a way that is lawful or democratic. Kim Griffiths has been undermining us by spreading false information about our group to families." (email to Lisa Vreman - Document Brief of the Plaintiffs, Tab R)