Roberts v. Toronto Life Publishing Co. Ltd.

Roberts v. Toronto Life Publishing Co. Ltd.

The motion judge erred by granting summary judgment because, on a proper application of the genuine‑issue‑for‑trial standard and reading the article as a whole, the excerpts complained of were capable of being defamatory of the appellant Roberts; accordingly the appeal was allowed and the summary judgment set aside.

Citation
2010 ONCA 82
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Michael Shtaif; Plaintiff (appellant): Gregory Roberts; Defendant (respondent): Toronto Life Publishing Co. Ltd.; Defendant (respondent): Sarah Fulford; Defendant (respondent): Jay Teitel; Defendant (respondent): Veronica Maddocks; Defendant (respondent): Angie Gardos; Defendant (respondent): Matthew Fox; Defendant (respondent): Claire Cooper
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (defamation) / Appeal From Summary Judgment (motion Judge Granted Summary Judgment Dismissing Appellant's Claim)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; summary judgment set aside; action to proceed (remitted for trial or further proceedings).
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Libel, Referability, Capable of Defamatory Meaning
Source Language
English
Defamation Civil Procedure Media Law Summary Judgment Libel Referability Capable of Defamatory Meaning

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Shtaif

Plaintiff (appellant)

Gregory Roberts

Plaintiff (appellant)

Toronto Life Publishing Co. Ltd.

Defendant (respondent)

Sarah Fulford

Defendant (respondent)

Jay Teitel

Defendant (respondent)

Veronica Maddocks

Defendant (respondent)

Angie Gardos

Defendant (respondent)

Matthew Fox

Defendant (respondent)

Claire Cooper

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (defamation) / Appeal From Summary Judgment (motion Judge Granted Summary Judgment Dismissing Appellant's Claim)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of were capable of referring to appellant Roberts
  2. 2 Whether the words complained of were capable of being defamatory of appellant Roberts
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment was appropriate or whether there was a genuine issue for trial

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge erred by granting summary judgment because, on a proper application of the genuine‑issue‑for‑trial standard and reading the article as a whole, the excerpts complained of were capable of being defamatory of the appellant Roberts; accordingly the appeal was allowed and the summary judgment set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; summary judgment set aside; action to proceed (remitted for trial or further proceedings).

Orders

  • Summary judgment dismissing appellant Roberts' action set aside
  • Costs to the appellant in the total amount of $10,000 inclusive of G.S.T. and disbursements for both the motion below and the appeal