Skip to content

Narrow screen resolution Wide screen resolution Auto adjust screen size Increase font size Decrease font size Default font size default color brick color green color
CAFCOR Forum
_GEN_GOTOBOTTOM Post Reply
TOPIC:
#18974
QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE defence shields CO-OP BOARD from DEFAMATION CLAIMER Clark v Snow 2019/06/26 20:26  
Before suing for defamation a governance Board, it's worth considering a recent loss by an angry Toronto co-op shareholder as to the complexities involved. This of course ain't legal advice.

In Clark v Snow 2019 ONSC Ontario Superior Court upfront summarily dismisses an $ 850 K claim by a Toronto co-op critic with focus on defamation claims & defences thereto of QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE & “justification” ( substantial truth of statement ).

There's an interesting judicial discussion about this in an environment with strong parallels to condo, Building Scheme and arguably general corporate scenarios.

One dictum suggests there is/could be a two-way shield shared by Board & critic.

BUT the losing 82 year old S.R.L. self-represented co-op shareholder critic David Clark is ordered to pay $ 17 K or half of the defendants’ $ 35 K partial indemnity defence costs & disbursements.

Prominently amongst Mr. Clark’s beefs was alleged defamation by Board’s circulation - to all shareholders ( before 2017 AGM ) - of correspondence exchanged between Clark & the Board’s counsel purporting to refute Clark’s beefs.

Clark had expressly labelled his criticism ( to the co-op Board ) as “private & confidential”.

But such didn’t stay so after the judge judicially considered the loss of such shielding due to previously circulated beefs – here denied by Clark - suspiciously looking like Clark's own work.

Did Mr Clark unwittingly sabotage his privacy by proselytizing to other shareholders ?

By pre-AGM mailout in 2017 to ALL SHAREHOLDERS with their counsel's reply to Clark, the Board next enclosed & labelled Clark’s letter as “libelous, inflammatory, misleading and not factually accurate”.

This reputation-slammer was not to Mr. Clark's liking at all.

One bottom line : Is this sort of claim beyond even a clever S.R.L. self-represented litigant ?

Clark v. Snow 2019 ONSC 3686 issued June 14/19 http://canlii.ca/t/j0zvc ( Clark’s claims are stricken by Rule 20 Summary dismissal )

Clark v. Snow ONSC 1515 issued March 5/18 http://canlii.ca/t/hqscc ( Defendants earlier overcome late defence )
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
_GEN_GOTOTOP Post Reply
contact webmaster