McVeigh v. Boeriu

McVeigh v. Boeriu

The letter, though defamatory in meaning, was published on a privileged occasion (response to Board crisis and request for ratepayer feedback); the defendants honestly and reasonably believed their opinions were true and there was no evidence of express malice or dominant improper purpose; qualified privilege therefore bars liability and the plaintiff's action is dismissed on summary trial.

Citation
2011 BCSC 400
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Dorrit Yvonne Steen McVeigh; Defendant/applicant: Kathleen Boeriu; Defendant/applicant: George Boeriu
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Defamation (civil Tort) / Summary Trial Application Under Rule 9 7 (bc Supreme Court)
Outcome
Defendants' summary trial application granted; plaintiff's defamation action dismissed
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Malice, Summary Trial Suitability, Publication to Ratepayers, Code of Conduct
Source Language
English
Defamation Civil Procedure Administrative/local Government Law Qualified Privilege Malice Summary Trial Suitability Publication to Ratepayers Code of Conduct

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dorrit Yvonne Steen McVeigh

Plaintiff/respondent

Kathleen Boeriu

Defendant/applicant

George Boeriu

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (civil Tort) / Summary Trial Application Under Rule 9 7 (bc Supreme Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the January 9, 2008 letter was defamatory
  2. 2 Whether the publication occurred on an occasion of qualified privilege
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff proved express malice to defeat qualified privilege

Ratio Decidendi

The letter, though defamatory in meaning, was published on a privileged occasion (response to Board crisis and request for ratepayer feedback); the defendants honestly and reasonably believed their opinions were true and there was no evidence of express malice or dominant improper purpose; qualified privilege therefore bars liability and the plaintiff's action is dismissed on summary trial.

Court Disposition

Defendants' summary trial application granted; plaintiff's defamation action dismissed

Orders

  • Action dismissed
  • Defendants entitled to costs at Scale B unless parties apply within 30 days for different directions