Legal Blog
Multiples
Sometimes it is advantageous for a plaintiff to join multiple defendants in an action: more parties to contribute to a potential settlement and more pockets to pay an award after judgment. However, at other times, multiple defendants will cause multiple headaches. Such was the case in Guergis v. Novak 2013 ONSC 1130 (S.C.J.).
Defamed
Helen Guergis felt she had been treated unfairly. She alleged she was forced to resign from Cabinet, removed from the Conservative Party caucus, and smeared. She complained to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and got nowhere. She then commenced an action against the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister, the PM’s chief of staff and principal secretary, another Cabinet minister and someone on her staff, an MP interviewed about the matter, and the law firm and lawyer of the Conservative Party and the PM. Some of the parties had the same lawyers representing them. Ultimately, four sets of lawyers represented the defendants.
The defendants moved to strike the pleadings, citing abuse of process and privilege. They succeeded and the action was struck. Guergis appealed and, except for the alleged defamation of the MP in an interview, the appeal was dismissed.
Scorecard
The defendants requested costs of $226,000 in aggregate on a partial indemnity basis. The motions judge noted that the law firms had overlapping interests and that some carried the ball more than others. He ultimately awarded costs of $119,000 spread among four groups of lawyers. The Court of Appeal awarded costs of the appeal of $33,000 in aggregate.
So far, Guergis’ action has caused her $152,000 in headaches and that does not include what she has had to pay her own lawyers.