COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
CITATION: 373041 Ontario Limited v. King Reed & Associates Inc.,
2014 ONCA 184
DATE: 20140310
DOCKET: C57378 and C57379
Juriansz, Pepall and van Rensburg JJ.A.
BETWEEN
DOCKET: C57378
373041 Ontario Limited
Plaintiff/Appellant
and
King Reed & Associates Inc., King Reed & Associates LP,
King Reed & Associates, Granite Global Solutions Inc.,
Shaw Satellite G.P., c.o.b. as Shaw Direct and
Bell Expressvu Limited Partnership
Defendants/Respondents
AND BETWEEN
DOCKET: C57379
Kurt Pieckenhagen, Julita Pieckenhagen, Julita-Luise Pieckenhagen,
Nicole Pieckenhagen and Vera Pieckenhagen
Plaintiffs/Appellants
and
King Reed & Associates Inc., King Reed & Associates LP,
King Reed & Associates, Granite Global Solutions, Granite Global Solutions Inc., Shaw Satellite G.P., c.o.b. as Shaw Direct and
Bell Expressvu Limited Partnership
Defendants/Respondents
Melvyn L. Solmon and Nancy J. Tourgis, for the appellants
Christopher D. Bredt and Denise L. Bambrough, for the respondents Shaw Satellite G.P., c.o.b. as Shaw Direct and Bell Expressvu Limited Partnership
Heard and released orally: March 6, 2014
On appeal from the orders of Justice Edward M. Morgan of the Superior Court of Justice, dated June 20, 2013.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The appellants appeal the June 20, 2013 orders of the motions judge in which he granted the summary judgment motions of the respondents and dismissed the appellants’ actions against them. The appeals involve two companion libel actions brought by the appellants. In neither action did the defendants, King Reed & Associates Inc., King Reed & Associates LP, and King Reed & Associates (“King Reed”) move for summary judgment and the actions continue against those parties.
[2] The appellants’ claims arise from an article that appeared in a King Reed corporate newsletter and which was then posted on a website of a limited partner of King Reed and removed 16 days later. The appellants conceded that the evidence did not disclose any agency relationship between King Reed and the Shaw respondent.
[3] The appellants filed no affidavits in response to the summary judgment motions of the respondents.
[4] On this appeal, the appellants submit that the motions judge erred in failing to draw an adverse inference from refusals given on cross-examinations.
[5] We disagree.
[6] The motions judge considered the refusals and declined to draw an adverse inference. Based on the record before him, it was open to him to make that determination.
[7] The appeals are dismissed. Costs to the respondents are fixed in the amount of $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes and are to be allocated equally between the two actions.
“R. G. Juriansz J.A.”
“S.E. Pepall J.A.”
“K. van Rensburg J.A.”