Case Study

Introduction

A corporation has no reputation in the personal sense, but she is entitled to respect for his good name. Corporations, for profit or not, take them in defamation. In general, however, the comments referred to the action should have been held regarding the legal person for it to have one head. For example, if someone says it is corrupt, it has abused funds, or it serves as a screen for a religious sect, he may bring an action for defamation on its own. A corporation can be defamed by comments made about one of its members, but only if the association between it and the person in question is very narrow, even indivisible, with regard to these defamatory.

The Town of Halton Hills is a corporation. As such, it can have a good reputation to protect. Moreover, any municipal corporation is created in accordance with Articles 8 and 9 (1) of the Municipal Act and has all the powers and duties of a natural person. Of course, an individual may act in defamation.

The evidence does not, however, go farther than that. There is no indication as to the substance of the lawsuits, the defendants, or the outcomes of those proceedings. The control of vexatious proceedings is necessary to protect the integrity of the judicial system. The purpose of the section is to prevent people from abusing the system for improper purposes such as harassment or oppression: Dale Streiman & Kurz LLP v. De Teresi, [2007] O.J. No. 255, at para. 7. Accordingly, a litigant's behaviour both inside and outside of the court is relevant: Canada Post Corporation v. Varma, [2000] F.C.J. No. 851. It is not unheard of for a litigant to utilize the court's processes as part of an overall strategy of harassment and abuse and the court must be vigilant to protect its process from being misused in that fashion.

Boswell J. gives for declaring Roskam a vexations litigant

Boswell J. gives for declaring Roskam a vexations litigant. Jurisdiction is acquired in one of two modes: first, as against the person of the defendant by the service of process; or, secondly, by a procedure against the property of the defendant within the jurisdiction of the court. In the latter case, the defendant is not personally bound by the judgment beyond the property in question.

And it is immaterial whether the proceeding against the property is by an attachment or bill in chancery. It must be substantially a proceeding in rem. Before the Charter, Canadian jurisprudence posed that governments, including local authorities, could act in defamation. After the entry into force of the Charter, Canadian courts have not held for No action for defamation of government authorities. The legal issue before me in this case was argued before the judge in the cause Pedlar of Montague v Township Page (2006), CV705/05 (CSJOnt). His decision was announced while I was putting the finishing touches on my own.

Since I came independently to the same conclusion that Judge Pedlar, without the ...