Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Manitoba Court of Appeal upheld a motion judge's order striking or dismissing a defamation action brought by Iglesia Ni Cristo against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and individual defendants.
   
• Three grounds supported the dismissal: failure to serve an affidavit of documents or produce documents under rule 30.08(2)(b), misconduct during examination for discovery under rule 34.14(1)(b), and abuse of process under rule 25.11(1)(c).
   
• Central to the abuse of process finding was the motion judge's conclusion that the defamation action formed part of a "concerted strategy" by the INC to use the courts to silence critics of the religious organization.
   
• Documentary disclosure obligations were persistently avoided by the plaintiffs over several years, despite multiple court directions to rectify the non-compliance.
   
• The INC appointed a discovery representative, described by the motion judge as a "sacrificial lamb," who had extraordinarily little knowledge of the organization's operations relevant to the action.
   
• Appellate deference governed the remedy review, as the dismissal order was an exercise of discretion requiring demonstration of legal error, a palpable and overriding factual error, or a failure to exercise discretion judicially to warrant interference.
   

Facts of the case

"Iglesia Ni Cristo" Church of Christ and several affiliated entities — including Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church of Christ) in Alberta, Iglesia Ni Cristo Church of Christ Inc., "Iglesia Ni Cristo" Church of Christ, Manitoba Inc., Iglesia Ni Cristo, and Eglise du Christ (Montreal) / Iglesia Ni Cristo (Montreal), all carrying on religious activities as Iglesia Ni Cristo (collectively, the INC) — commenced a defamation action against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Timothy Sawa, Lynette Fortune, Robert McKeown, and Rolando Dizon, with Lowell II Robosa Menorca and Liezl De Ocampo also named as defendants. The action concerned published accounts of the INC's alleged financial improprieties and its use of violence.

The matter came before the Manitoba Court of Appeal (2026 MBCA 45, decided May 6, 2026) following a motion judge's decision to strike or dismiss the defamation action on three grounds: (a) failure to serve an affidavit of documents or produce a document in compliance with the Manitoba King's Bench Rules, Man Reg 553/88 (rule 30.08(2)(b)); (b) misconduct during examination for discovery (rule 34.14(1)(b)); and (c) abuse of process, as the motion judge was satisfied the action formed part of a "concerted strategy" to use the court process to silence critics of the INC (rule 25.11(1)(c)).

Policy, legislative, and procedural provisions at issue

The applicable procedural framework was the Manitoba King's Bench Rules, Man Reg 553/88. The specific rules engaged were rule 30.08(2)(b), governing obligations to serve an affidavit of documents and produce documents; rule 34.14(1)(b), addressing misconduct during an examination for discovery; rule 25.11(1)(c), authorizing the court to dismiss or stay a proceeding as an abuse of process; and rule 50.07(2), raised by the plaintiffs in a submission that the Court of Appeal ultimately found unnecessary to address.

Reasoning and analysis

The Court of Appeal, per Mainella JA writing for the panel, found the record before the motion judge reflected several years of deliberate avoidance by the plaintiffs of their discovery obligations, even in the face of numerous court directions to rectify the non-compliance. The plaintiffs refused to produce documentation about the inner workings of the INC that was relevant to the published accounts forming the subject of the defamation action. For the examination for discovery, the INC appointed a representative referred to only as "Brother Rvy," whom the motion judge described as a "sacrificial lamb" because he knew extraordinarily little about the operations of the INC relevant to the action. Multiple undertakings provided by Brother Rvy during the examination were never answered, notwithstanding several court directions to complete them. The Court of Appeal saw no basis to interfere with the motion judge's finding that the plaintiffs deliberately failed to meet their documentary disclosure obligations under the Rules and engaged in misconduct during the examination for discovery by appointing a straw man representative who provided worthless undertakings.

On the question of the remedy ordered, the court noted that a motion judge's exercise of discretion to strike or dismiss is entitled to significant appellate deference, absent a demonstration of legal error, a palpable and overriding factual error, or a failure to exercise the discretion judicially — including acting arbitrarily or being so clearly wrong as to amount to an injustice — as articulated in Saskatchewan (Environment) v Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4 at para 32. The Court found no such basis for interference with the decision to dismiss pursuant to rules 30.08(2)(b) and 34.14(1)(b), rendering it unnecessary to comment on whether the claim should also be struck as an abuse of process or on the plaintiffs' submission concerning alleged non-compliance with rule 50.07(2).

Ruling and overall outcome

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The respondents — the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Timothy Sawa, Lynette Fortune, Robert McKeown, and Rolando Dizon — were the successful parties. The quantum of costs was not specified in the decision.