Lake v. Demb et al., (1998) 70 O.T.C. 314 (GD)

• Judge: Epstein, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: Friday May 29, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1998), 70 O.T.C. 314 (GD)

Lake v. Demb (1998), 70 O.T.C. 314 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] O.T.C. TBEd. JL.035

Donald Lake (plaintiff) v. Alan Demb, Alan Demb Consultants Ltd., City of Toronto and Richard Tomaszewicz (defendants)

(Court File No. 96-CU-103273)

Indexed As: Lake v. Demb et al.

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Epstein, J.

June 11, 1998.

Summary:

A City committee met and discussed a property owner's development application. The City circulated at the meeting and made available to the public a letter by the owner's solicitor, stating that the plaintiff opposed the development solely to extort money from the owner. A reporter published an article regarding, inter alia, the alleged extortion after a conversation with a City employee. The plaintiff sued the defendants in defamation. The City and Tomaszewicz requested summary judgment, arguing, inter alia, that a qualified privilege applied to the circulation of the letter.

The Ontario Court (General Division) discussed qualified privilege and held that (1) the moving parties failed to prove that the City had a duty to circulate the letter and that it was in the best interests of the public to receive the information, (2) a factual issue existed that might defeat the defence of qualified privilege, and (3) whether the moving parties' actions were motivated by malice was a genuine issue for trial.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2996

Defences - Qualified privilege - Public duty - Statements to or by government - See paragraphs 23 to 40.

Practice - Topic 5708

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Bar to application - Existence of issue to be tried - See paragraphs 37 to 40.

Cases Noticed:

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1; 126 D.L.R.(4th) 129, refd to. [para. 29].

Botiuk v. Bardyn et al., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 3; 186 N.R. 1; 85 O.A.C. 81; 126 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [para. 30].

Adam v. Ward, [1917] A.C. 309 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 30].

Globe & Mail Ltd. v. Boland, [1960] S.C.R. 203, refd to. [para. 31].

Urethane Specialties Inc. v. Valdez (1980), 620 P.2d 683 (Alaska), refd to. [para. 33].

De Buse v. McCarthy, [1942] 1 K.B. 156 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Watson and Gallagher v. Southam Inc. et al. (1998), 52 O.T.C. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 40].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Raymond E., The Law of Defamation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1994), pp. 723 [para. 31]; 827 [para. 35].

Counsel:

Marlon M. Roefe, for the plaintiff;

Charles M. Loopstra, for the defendants, the Corporation of the Borough of East York and Tomaszewicz.

This motion was heard on April 28 and May 29, 1998, by Epstein, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who delivered the following decision on June 11, 1998.