Green v Bush et al; Green v Metz et al, 2018 MBCA 12

Citation: Green v Bush et al; Green v Metz et al, 2018 MBCA 12 Date: 20180212 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Chief Justice Richard J. Chartier Mr. Justice William J. Burnett Mr. Justice Christopher J. Mainella Docket: AI17-30-08917 ) BETWEEN : ) ) MARTIN GREEN ) ) (Plaintiff) Appellant ) ) - and - ) ) M. Green HEATHER BUSH and george bush ) on his own behalf ) (Defendants) Respondents ) ) B. J. Meronek, Q.C. and - and - ) M. D. J.

Schulz ) for the Respondents Docket: AI17-30-08925 ) BETWEEN : ) ) Appeals heard and MARTIN GREEN ) Decision pronounced: ) February 12, 2018 (Plaintiff) Appellant ) ) - and - ) ) DON METZ, NEIL BESNER and THE ) UNIVERSITY OF WINNIPEG ) ) (Defendants) Respondents ) On appeal from 2017 MBQB 83 ; and 2017 MBQB 84 BURNETT JA (for the Court): [ 1 ] The plaintiff appeals two decisions made by the same judge (the motion judge) granting the defendants’ motions for

summary judgment and dismissing the plaintiff’s claims for defamation with costs. The plaintiff’s actions arise from a chain of events following his expulsion from a teaching certificate program in the Faculty of Education at the University of Winnipeg (the University). [ 2 ] The standard of review applicable on an appeal from a

summary judgment order is set out in Perth Services Ltd v Quinton et al , 2009 MBCA 81 at paras 22-28 . [ 3 ] There is no merit to these appeals. [ 4 ] With respect to the plaintiff’s claim against Mr. and Mrs. Bush, we are satisfied that in the specific circumstances of this case, the defence of justification was sufficiently pled. [ 5 ] We are also of the view that the motion judge did not err when he concluded that the words complained of did not have a defamatory meaning and that the plaintiff had failed to establish that there is a genuine issue for trial.

On the record before us, there is no “realistic chance” ( Perth at para 42) that the action will be successful (i.e., there is no triable issue which realistically could result in a judgment). [ 6 ] The dismissal of this claim was, as the motion judge stated, “a proportionate, more expeditious and a less expensive means to achieve a just result” ( 2017 MBQB 83 at para 65 ).

[ 7 ] With respect to the plaintiff’s other claim against Mr. Metz, Mr. Besner and the University, the motion judge was satisfied that the defendants had established a prima facie case for dismissing the action and that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that there was a genuine issue for trial. [ 8 ] Having carefully considered the plaintiff’s submissions, we are not persuaded that the motion judge erred or misdirected himself, or that his decisions were so clearly wrong as to amount to an injustice. [ 9 ] The appeals are therefore dismissed with costs to the defendants. JA CJM JA