RBC Royal Bank of Canada
The trial judge erred in granting the respondents' motion to withdraw the case from the jury because, on the appellant's version of the utterances (which the trial judge accepted for the motion), the words were reasonably capable of defamatory meaning; therefore the issue should have been decided by a jury and a new...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2012 ONCA 883
- Parties
- Appellant: George Seredy; Respondent: RBC Royal Bank of Canada; Respondent: Greg Peden as servant/agent of Royal Bank of Canada; Respondent: Aklima Rojan as servant/agent of Royal Bank of Canada
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 13 December 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal (defamation Slander) / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Superior Court of Justice; Order for New Trial
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; trial judge's dismissal set aside; new trial ordered.
- Legal Topics
- Slander, Non Suit/withdrawal From Jury, Jury Trial, New Trial
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
George Seredy
Appellant
RBC Royal Bank of Canada
Respondent
Greg Peden as servant/agent of Royal Bank of Canada
Respondent
Aklima Rojan as servant/agent of Royal Bank of Canada
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (defamation Slander) / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Superior Court of Justice; Order for New Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred in granting the respondents' motion to withdraw the case from the jury (characterized as a non-suit)
- 2 Whether the words alleged by the appellant were reasonably capable of defamatory meaning
- 3 Whether a new trial is required as a consequence of the successful appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge erred in granting the respondents' motion to withdraw the case from the jury because, on the appellant's version of the utterances (which the trial judge accepted for the motion), the words were reasonably capable of defamatory meaning; therefore the issue should have been decided by a jury and a new trial is required.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; trial judge's dismissal set aside; new trial ordered.
Orders
- Allow the appeal
- Set aside the judgment dismissing the action for slander
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
RBC Royal Bank of Canada Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2012-12-13 Neutral citation 2012 ONCA 883 Docket numbers C54725 Judges Juriansz, Russell G.; LaForme, Harry Smith; Ducharme, Edward W. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Seredy v. RBC Royal Bank of Canada, 2012 ONCA 883 DATE: 20121213 DOCKET: C54725 Juriansz, LaForme and Ducharme[*] JJ.A. BETWEEN George Seredy Appellant and RBC Royal Bank of Canada, Greg Peden as servant/agent of Royal Bank of Canada, Aklima Rojan as servant/agent of Royal Bank of Canada Respondents George Seredy, in person Greg Bowden, for the respondents Heard and released orally: April 20, 2012 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Silja S. Seppi of the Superior Court of Justice, dated January 18, 2011. SUPPLEMENTARY ENDORSEMENT [1] The court’s decision in this case was released on June 5, 2012. The court decided that the trial judge erred by granting the respondents’ motion to withdraw the case from the jury. She had characterized the motion as a motion for non-suit and had dismissed the appellant’s action for slander. In determining the motion the trial judge accepted the appellant’s version of the utterances and the appeal was decided on that basis. This court decided that the words in the appellant’s version were reasonably capable of carrying a defamatory meaning. [2] In its reasons released June 5, 2012 the court allowed the appeal but did not state explicitly that there would be a new trial. [3] Had the trial judge allowed the case to proceed, it would have been the task of the jury to decide if the words alleged by the appellant were uttered in fact, and if the words found to be uttered were in fact defamatory. Given the trial judge’s ruling the jury was dismissed. A new trial in front of a new jury is necessary. We would have thought this was implicit in our reasons, but to remove any doubt, we order a new trial as a consequence of the successful appeal. “R.G. Juriansz J.A.” “H.S. LaForme J.A.” [*]Ducharme J.A. did not participate in the Supplementary Endorsement.