6.7: Questioning on affidavit in support, response and reply to application
7.3: Summary Judgment (Application and decision)

Case Summary

The Plaintiff commenced an Action against the Defendants, claiming that they conspired to defame him and have him suspended from the practice of law. The Defendants applied, pursuant to Rule 7.3, for Summary Dismissal of the Plaintiff’s Claim. The Defendants argued there was no evidence of any bad faith, and having satisfied the requirements of Rule 7.3, the onus falls to the Plaintiff to establish some evidence that there is a genuine issue for Trial. Master Robertson reiterated the judicial principles established recently with respect to Summary Judgment Applications; specifically that each party must put their best foot forward.

The Plaintiff had cross-examined some of the Defendants on their Affidavits, but failed to file the transcripts as required by Rule 6.7(b). Further, the Plaintiff did not refer to any evidence from the cross-examinations in oral argument. Master Robertson reserved the decision until the transcripts could be reviewed. Master Robertson observed that the evidence failed to demonstrate that the Defendants acted in bad faith, but the Plaintiff’s actions were indicative of bad faith. Further, no particulars were provided with respect to the alleged defamatory statements. Master Robertson held that there was no merit to the Claim and the record allowed for a fair and just determination to be made; Summary Dismissal was granted.

View CanLII Details