Chandra v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. et al., 2016 ONCA 448

• Judge: MacFarland, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: May 12, 2016
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: 2016 ONCA 448;(2016), 349 O.A.C. 93 (CA)

Chandra v. CBC (2016), 349 O.A.C. 93 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] O.A.C. TBEd. JN.009

Ranjit Kumar Chandra (plaintiff/moving party) v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation , Chris O'Neill-Yates , Catherine McIsaacs, Lynn Burgess , Jack Strawbridge and Memorial University of Newfoundland (defendants/respondents)

(M45682; M46448; 2016 ONCA 448)

Indexed As: Chandra v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

MacFarland, J.A.

June 7, 2016.

Summary:

As a result of a broadcast by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in January 2006, Chandra sued the CBC and two journalists for libel and invasion of privacy. The action named other defendants but was discontinued against them prior to trial. A jury verdict was received on July 24, 2015. The jury concluded that although the impugned broadcast was defamatory of Chandra, the words used in the broadcast were true. They also concluded that there was no intrusion upon seclusion. Accordingly, the action was dismissed. The trial judge fixed substantial indemnity costs against Chandra in the all-inclusive sum of $1,614,000. No notice of appeal was filed within 30 days of July 24, 2015. On October 21, 2015, Chandra filed a notice of motion, seeking an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. If the motion was granted, the defendants cross-moved for security for costs. If Chandra was granted an extension of time, he consented to an order requiring that he post security for costs in the sum of $166,369.90. He refused to post any part of the trial costs award.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, per MacFarland, J.A., dismissed the motion. The court applied the five part test that a party had to meet to be granted an extension of time. (1) The court was not persuaded that Chandra formed an intention to appeal within the 30-day period. (2) There was no satisfactory explanation for the delay. (3) When considering the merits of the appeal, it was not with a view to determining whether the appeal would succeed, but only with a view to determining whether the appeal had so little merit that the court could reasonably deny the important right of appeal. Chandra failed to meet even that low threshold. The appeal was devoid of merit and could not succeed. (4) While there was little if any prejudice that arose from the three month delay in filing the notice of appeal, the overall prejudice to the defendants informed the "justice of the case" ground. The prejudice to the defendants if an extension was allowed was that they would lose the finality of the jury verdict. In light of Chandra's conduct, granting the extension of time (assuming the defendants' cross-motion was denied) would put at even greater risk the defendants' ability to enforce the trial costs award. (5) The justice of the case required that the motion be dismissed. The court awarded the defendants $35,000 for the costs of the motion.

Evidence - Topic 4716

Witnesses - Examination - Cross-examination - On testimony to be contradicted - See paragraphs 64 to 67.

Evidence - Topic 7000.5

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - Nature and scope of - See paragraphs 68 and 69.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2864

Defences - Justification or truth - Evidence and proof - See paragraphs 75 and 76.

Libel and Slander - Topic 5461

Evidence - Burden of proof - General - See paragraph 78.

Practice - Topic 4500

Discovery - Use of examination in court - Reading of discovery evidence into the record - See paragraphs 64 to 67.

Practice - Topic 5182

Conduct of trial - Verdicts - Setting aside jury verdict - See paragraphs 70 to 83.

Practice - Topic 5192

Conduct of trial - Charge to jury - Sufficiency of - See paragraphs 72 to 74.

Practice - Topic 5287

Trials - General - Evidence - Order of witnesses - See paragraphs 52 to 62.

Practice - Topic 9002

Appeals - Notice of appeal - Extension of time for filing and serving notice of appeal - See paragraphs 12 to 94.

Practice - Topic 9224

Appeals - New trials - Grounds - General - See paragraph 71.

Counsel:

H. Richard Bennett and Joseph Figliomeni, for the moving party, Ranjit Chandra;

Christine L. Lonsdale and Gillian Kerr, for Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Chris O'Neill-Yates and Lynn Burgess.

This motion was heard in chambers on May 12, 2016, by MacFarland, J.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal, who released the following endorsement on June 7, 2016.