Craven v. Osidacz

Craven v. Osidacz

The appeal was dismissed because the motion judge correctly concluded the appellant's pleadings did not raise a genuine issue for trial and the pleaded defence of truth impermissibly sought to collaterally attack prior judicial findings; consequently there was no basis to disturb the order striking portions of the Statement of Defence or to grant the additional relief sought on appeal, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

Citation
2014 ONCA 329
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Julie Craven; Plaintiff (respondent): John Craven; Plaintiff (respondent): Maureen Craven; Plaintiff (respondent): Sean Craven; Plaintiff (respondent): Louise Huzul; Defendant (appellant): Michael Osidacz; Defendant (appellant): Elizabeth Osidacz; Defendant (appellant): Richard Chmura; Defendant (appellant): Lisa Chmura; Defendant (appellant): Lindsey Andraza
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Order Granting in Part Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment (motion Judge Struck Parts of Statement of Defence)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; motion judge's order affirmed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Striking Pleadings, Defence of Truth, Collateral Attack, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Appeal Defamation Summary Judgment Striking Pleadings Defence of Truth Collateral Attack Costs

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

Parties

Julie Craven

Plaintiff (respondent)

John Craven

Plaintiff (respondent)

Maureen Craven

Plaintiff (respondent)

Sean Craven

Plaintiff (respondent)

Louise Huzul

Plaintiff (respondent)

Michael Osidacz

Defendant (appellant)

Elizabeth Osidacz

Defendant (appellant)

Richard Chmura

Defendant (appellant)

Lisa Chmura

Defendant (appellant)

Lindsey Andraza

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Order Granting in Part Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment (motion Judge Struck Parts of Statement of Defence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge erred in striking paragraphs of the Statement of Defence
  2. 2 Whether the pleaded defence of truth amounted to an impermissible collateral attack on prior factual findings
  3. 3 Whether there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the March 18, 2006 incident

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the motion judge correctly concluded the appellant's pleadings did not raise a genuine issue for trial and the pleaded defence of truth impermissibly sought to collaterally attack prior judicial findings; consequently there was no basis to disturb the order striking portions of the Statement of Defence or to grant the additional relief sought on appeal, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; motion judge's order affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order of Nightingale J. dated March 28, 2013 affirmed