M.J.M. v. D.J.M., (2000) 189 Sask.R. 303 (CA)

• Judge: Bayda, C.J.S., Sherstobitoff and Jackson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: May 10, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2000), 189 Sask.R. 303 (CA);2000 SKCA 53

M.J.M. v. D.J.M. (2000), 189 Sask.R. 303 (CA);

    216 W.A.C. 303

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.065

M.J.M. (appellant/respondent) v. D.J.M. (respondent/defendant)

(No. 3117; 2000 SKCA 53)

Indexed As: M.J.M. v. D.J.M.

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Bayda, C.J.S., Sherstobitoff and Jackson, JJ.A.

May 10, 2000.

Summary:

The plaintiff husband and defendant wife were involved in an acrimonious matrimonial dispute, which included a claim for custody. The defendant sent a letter to the Law Society of Saskatchewan, alleging pro­fessional misconduct by the plaintiff's solici­tor. The letter also stated that the plaintiff had sexually assaulted their son. As a result of that allegation, the plain­tiff sued the defendant for defamation. The defendant applied to strike out the statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 170 Sask.R. 292, struck out the statement of claim, hold­ing that the letter of complaint to the Law Society was abso­lutely privileged. The plain­tiff appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in striking out the statement of claim.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2928

Defences - Absolute privilege - Statements made in the course of judicial or legal pro­ceedings - The plaintiff husband and def­endant wife were involved in an acrimoni­ous matrimo­nial dispute, which included a claim for custody - The defendant sent a letter to the Law Society of Saskatchewan, alleging professional misconduct by the plaintiff's solicitor - The letter also stated that the plaintiff had sexually assaulted their son - As a result of that allegation, the plaintiff sued the defendant for defama­tion - The trial judge struck out the state­ment of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action - The trial judge held that absolute privilege in quasi-judicial pro­ceedings extended to irrelevant statements made against a stranger to the proceedings - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed an appeal where it was not clear and obvious that the plaintiff should be denied the opportunity to proceed to trial - It would be for the trial judge to decide whether absolute privilege extended to the statement made in this case.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - [See Libel and Slan­der - Topic 2928 ].

Cases Noticed:

Milgaard v. Kujawa et al., [1994] 9 W.W.R. 305; 123 Sask.R. 164; 74 W.A.C. 164 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 4].

Sagon v. Royal Bank of Canada et al. (1992), 105 Sask.R. 133; 32 W.A.C. 133 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

K.W. Enterprises v. Boylan, [1982] Sask. D. 3701-1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Kieling et al. v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool (1992), 105 Sask.R. 11; 32 W.A.C. 11 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Kindersley District Credit Union Ltd. v. Dahl, [1993] 4 W.W.R. 727; 109 Sask.R. 74; 42 W.A.C. 74 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Taylor et al. v. Director of the Serious Fraud Office et al., [1998] 4 All E.R. 801; 233 N.R. 172 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 7].

Lilley v. Roney (1892), 61 L.J.Q.B. 727, refd to. [para. 8].

Addis v. Crocker, [1960] 2 All E.R. 629 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Munster v. Lamb (1883), 11 Q.B.D. 588, dist. [para. 12].

Hodson v. Pare, [1899] 1 Q.B. 455, dist. [para. 12].

Seaman v. Netherclift (1876), 2 C.P.D. 53, refd to. [para. 13].

Delegal v. Highley (1837), 3 Bing. N.C. 950 (C.P.), refd to. [para. 13].

Keenan v. Wallace (1916), 51 I.L.T. 19, refd to. [para. 13].

Henderson v. Broomhead (1859), 157 E.R. 964 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

Henderson v. Scott (1892), 24 N.S.R. 232 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 2].

Halls v. Mitchell, [1928] S.C.R. 125, refd to. [para. 17, footnote 2].

Voratovic v. Law Society of Upper Canada (1978), 87 D.L.R.(3d) 140 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 2].

Boyachyk v. Dukes (1982), 37 A.R. 199; 136 D.L.R.(3d) 28 (Q.B.), affd. [1983] A.J. No. 86 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 2].

Lazarenko v. Davidson (1984), 56 A.R. 383 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 2].

Blakely v. Blakely, [1989] O.J. No. 806 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 2].

R.G.-H. and W.G.-H. v. Christison et al., [1997] 1 W.W.R. 641; 150 Sask.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 2].

Roach v. Long (1998), 108 O.A.C. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 2].

Rajkhowa v. Watson et al. (1998), 167 N.S.R.(2d) 108; 502 A.P.R. 108 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 2].

Samuel Manu-Tech Inc. v. Redipac Recyc­ling Corp. et al. (1999), 124 O.A.C. 125 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 2].

Martini v. Wrathall (1999), 180 N.S.R.(2d) 38; 557 A.P.R. 38 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 2].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Gatley on Libel and Slander (8th Ed. 1981), generally [paras. 15, 16]; pp. 165, para. 395 [paras. 11, 14]; 166 [para. 14]; 167, para. 400 [para. 15]; 174 [para. 16].

Halsbury's Laws of England, vol. 28, para. 98 [para. 13].

Counsel:

M. Owens, for the appellant;

N. Stooshinooff, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on September 22, 1999, by Bayda, C.J.S., Sherstobitoff and Jackson, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

The following decision was delivered on May 10, 2000, by Jackson, J.A.