Malice — Ontario Employment Law

S.-N. v. Rubin Thomlinson LLP

Appeal Dismissed in Defamation Claim Over Harassment Report

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from an order granting the respondents' motion to dismiss the appellant's defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act). The appellant, a medical resident, had sued the respondent workplace investigator over executive summaries that concluded her sexual harassment complaints were unproven and found her not credible. The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the summaries related to a matter of public interest, were protected by qualified privilege, lacked evidence of malice, and that the balancing test favoured protecting the expression. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the reports on the investigation into a public educational institution regarding harassment and patient safety concerns engaged the public interest and were protected by qualified privilege.

W. v. OSSTF

Union Defamation: Qualified Privilege & Summary Judgment

This is a summary judgment motion in a defamation action brought by a former union president against the union. The court addressed whether the union's publication of statements regarding the plaintiff's conduct and collective agreement negotiations was protected by qualified privilege and whether the plaintiff proved malice to defeat that privilege.

K. v. Best Buy Canada Limited

Defamation Appeal: Employer Privilege in Termination Statements

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a motion judge's decision dismissing a former employee's defamation claim against his employer. The employee sued over a statutory form submitted to employment insurance authorities stating he was dismissed for a conduct-related breach of policy. The motion judge found there was no triable issue regarding the defamation claim. The Court of Appeal agreed and dismissed the appeal, ruling that the employer's statements were protected by qualified privilege and showed no malice. The employee's claim remains dismissed.

F. v. Pace Marathon Motor Lines Inc.

Constructive Dismissal and Malice Appeal

This is an appeal from a trial decision finding constructive dismissal and malice in the employer's conduct. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the employer's unilateral changes to employment terms and failure to respond to concerns constituted constructive dismissal, and that the employer's initiation of criminal proceedings against the employee was motivated by malice.

G. v. B.

Defamation and Wrongful Dismissal: Superintendent Claims Defamation Caused Termination

A wrongful dismissal case where the plaintiff claimed defamation caused their termination as a superintendent. The court found insufficient evidence to establish a causal link between the defamatory statements and the termination, and denied aggravated and punitive damages due to lack of malice.

F. v. Windsor Teachers Credit Union Ltd.

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a trial judge's decision concerning wrongful dismissal and defamation. The appellant employer, Windsor Teachers Credit Union Limited, argued that the dismissal of the respondent employee, S.F., was justified and that its defamatory statements were protected by qualified privilege. The employee cross-appealed for increased damages, punitive damages, and damages for intentional infliction of mental distress. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge was entitled to find the employer's allegations were insincere and motivated by a desire to remove long-serving employees. The Court also dismissed the cross-appeal, finding the trial judge's damages for slander and costs awards appropriately addressed the employer's conduct.

H. v. D.

Defamation in Union: Malice Defeats Privilege

This is a defamation case arising in the context of a union dispute where the plaintiff, a projectionist and union member, was accused by fellow employees of sabotaging equipment. The court found that the defence of qualified privilege was defeated by malice, as the defendants continued to make defamatory allegations after the plaintiff was cleared in a union trial. The court awarded damages for mental distress, loss of reputation, and lost income.

L. v. Siegrist & Co. Ltd.

Defamation Appeal: Employer Liability for Dismissal Letters

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario concerning a defamation action brought by a former employee against his former employer. The appeal addresses whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury on issues of qualified privilege, malice, and the admissibility of evidence regarding the circumstances of the plaintiff's dismissal.