Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The sufficiency of defamation, libel, and negligence claims based on internal and regulatory communications was examined.

• Whether the letter from the New SRO, the METS report, and a Microsoft Teams chat constituted publication for defamation purposes was analyzed.

• The motion judge’s authority to reference the METS report as incorporated by reference in the statement of claim was challenged.

• The pleadings were assessed for reasonable cause of action and whether amendment could cure deficiencies.

• The motion judge’s decision to strike pleadings as “scandalous, frivolous or vexatious” was reviewed.

• Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondents in the sum of $5,000.

Facts of the case

Tot Michael Luoy, acting in person, appealed an order from Justice Ira G. Parghi of the Superior Court of Justice dated December 30, 2024. Luoy, a Senior Financial Advisor employed by Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC), commenced a claim after CIBC investigated a client complaint and reported it to the Enforcement Department of the New Self-Regulatory Organization of Canada (the “New SRO”). The claim alleged that defamatory statements were contained in three documents: (1) a March 31, 2023 letter from the New SRO to CIBC Securities advising of an investigation, (2) a Member Events Tracking System (METS) report sent by CIBC Securities to the New SRO, and (3) a Microsoft Teams chat between Luoy and a CIBC employee.

Discussion of policy terms and clauses at issue

The respondents moved under r. 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, to strike portions of Luoy’s Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action. The motion judge found that neither the letter from the New SRO nor the METS report contained the alleged defamatory statements, and even if the letter did, it was not published by the respondents. The Microsoft Teams chat was not considered a publication within the meaning of defamation law. The motion judge struck paragraph 60 of the pleadings as “scandalous, frivolous or vexatious” and did not grant leave to amend, finding that additional facts could not make the defamation claim tenable.

Outcome and ruling

The appellant argued that the motion judge relied on an improper version of the METS report and did not require proof of its authenticity. The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding the appellant’s submission speculative and upholding the motion judge’s entitlement to reference the document as incorporated by reference into the statement of claim. The Court of Appeal saw no error in the motion judge’s analysis of the documents and dismissed the appeal. The appellant, Tot Michael Luoy, was ordered to pay costs of the appeal to the respondents, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and CIBC Securities Inc., in the all-inclusive sum of $5,000. No additional damages or monetary awards were granted beyond this costs order.