This Application arose within a set of case managed Actions. Ms. Kostic sought permission to advance claims against Gowling WLG (“Gowling”), its lawyer Ms. Hanert, Jane Doe, and certain unspecified “others”, including by filing a proposed Statement of Claim (the “Proposed Claim”) either in a related Action or as a new Action. Justice Marion addressed the request under the existing case management Fiat process and with reference to the Rules.

Among other things, the Court refused leave for the filing of the Proposed Claim as a new Action because it failed to meet the requirements for an allegation of defamation, pursuant to Rule 13.7(f). The Rule requires strict particulars so that a Defendant can meet the case against it, and the Court can manage the proceeding. A compliant pleading must set out the impugned words with sufficient precision, attribute those words to the proposed Defendant, and specify the occasion of publication, including when, where, how, and to whom the words were communicated.

Marion J. found that the Proposed Claim did not identify any specific words said by Gowling or Ms. Hanert, did not set out the medium or occasion of publication, and did not provide dates or recipients. The record referenced social media posts and community updates apparently authored or published by others, which were not pleaded as publications by Gowling. The absence of particulars also prevented any preliminary assessment of privilege and publication. Many alleged statements arose within certain litigation steps and attracted absolute privilege. Further, communications within a solicitor-client relationship are typically confidential and not publications to a third party. On this basis, among others, leave to file was refused.