Scory v. Krannitz

Scory v. Krannitz

Claim dismissed because the claimant failed to adduces admissible evidence to prove any element of the pleaded torts (defamation, injurious falsehood, conspiracy, unlawful interference, trespass, nuisance); respondents' statements were largely opinion on a public environmental issue with only one minor factual error, no malice was proven, no causal loss was established, and the delay in processing arose from the claimant's failure to provide required information to regulatory authorities (DFO/Township), not respondents' conduct.

Citation
2011 BCSC 674
Parties
Claimant: Robin Scory; Respondent: Sian Krannitz; Respondent: Jack DeWitte; Respondent: Glen Valley Watershed Society
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil (tort) / Summary Dismissal Application (judgment)
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Defamation, Injurious Falsehood, Conspiracy to Injure, Unlawful Interference With Economic Relations, Trespass, Nuisance, Soil Deposit Permitting, Freedom of Expression, Agricultural Land Commission Process
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Tort Law Environmental Law Administrative Law Defamation Injurious Falsehood Conspiracy to Injure Unlawful Interference With Economic Relations +5 more

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 6 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robin Scory

Claimant

Sian Krannitz

Respondent

Jack DeWitte

Respondent

Glen Valley Watershed Society

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (tort) / Summary Dismissal Application (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents published false and malicious statements actionable as defamation
  2. 2 Whether statements amount to injurious falsehood causing economic loss
  3. 3 Whether respondents conspired to injure the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

Claim dismissed because the claimant failed to adduces admissible evidence to prove any element of the pleaded torts (defamation, injurious falsehood, conspiracy, unlawful interference, trespass, nuisance); respondents' statements were largely opinion on a public environmental issue with only one minor factual error, no malice was proven, no causal loss was established, and the delay in processing arose from the claimant's failure to provide required information to regulatory authorities (DFO/Township), not respondents' conduct.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed with costs to the respondents
  • Costs quantum and timing to be determined on submissions to the court