In the recent case of Kulyk v. Guastella, Justice Myers of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice tackled a critical legal question: does the existence of criminal proceedings arising from defamatory statements to police defer the start of the limitation period for a civil slander claim under Ontario’s Limitations Act?
Understanding the Limitation Period for Defamation
Ontario’s Limitations Act provides a two-year period for bringing civil claims, including defamation (but be careful, different types of defamation may be subject to different limitation periods). However, under section 5(1)(a)(iv), the Act specifies that a claim is discovered only when it becomes clear that bringing a civil proceeding is an “appropriate means” to seek remedy. This raises important considerations when defamatory statements to police lead to criminal charges.
The Case of Kulyk v. Guastella
In 2014, Andrew Kulyk faced criminal charges for fraud and assault after Josephine Guastella, his former spouse, reported him to the police. Mr. Kulyk was immediately aware of the defamatory nature of these allegations. Nevertheless, he delayed commencing a civil defamation claim until 2018, believing it inappropriate and potentially harmful to his criminal defence to initiate civil litigation while criminal charges were pending.
Justice Myers had to decide whether the plaintiff’s subjective view—that it was not “appropriate” to bring the civil defamation action during ongoing criminal proceedings—was valid under the Limitations Act.
The Influence of Winmill and Sosnowski Cases
Two important precedents influenced Justice Myers’ analysis:
Winmill v. Woodstock (Police Services Board): Here, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that in certain contexts, particularly where civil claims against police are directly related to concurrent criminal charges, it might not be appropriate to initiate civil proceedings until after the criminal case concludes. Justice MacPherson emphasized avoiding premature civil court assessments on matters integral to ongoing criminal proceedings, describing the related civil and criminal issues as “two sides of the same coin.”
Sosnowski v. MacEwan Petroleum: However, the subsequent decision in Sosnowski clarified the scope of Winmill. The Court of Appeal restricted Winmill’s application, stating that the “two sides of the same coin” analogy is primarily relevant when civil claims directly question police conduct involved in the criminal proceedings. In cases like wrongful dismissal or defamation, where the civil suit is not against police or Crown authorities, there is less justification to defer initiating the claim.
Justice Myers’ Application of Winmill and Sosnowski
In applying these precedents, Justice Myers found the Sosnowski analysis directly applicable. He noted a critical distinction: Kulyk’s defamation claim targeted an individual complainant, not police or Crown authorities. Consequently, unlike Winmill, initiating civil litigation did not risk improperly assessing the criminal prosecution’s propriety prematurely.
Justice Myers further observed that the civil defamation action, although related to the criminal charges, was not dependent on their outcome. An acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically confirm the falsity of the statements in a civil defamation context, and conversely, a conviction could bar a civil defamation action under doctrines such as issue estoppel or abuse of process.
What Justice Myers’ Decision Means
Justice Myers unequivocally held that subjective considerations, such as emotional stress or tactical choices about litigation timing, do not legally delay the discovery of a defamation claim. The limitation period begins when a plaintiff objectively has enough information about the defamatory statements to initiate a claim.
In Kulyk’s scenario, he knew all essential facts for a defamation action immediately after his arrest in 2014. Justice Myers determined that delaying the civil suit until after criminal charges concluded was an evaluative, tactical decision, impermissible under the Limitations Act’s criteria. Therefore, the two-year limitation period commenced when he became aware of the defamatory allegations—not upon resolution of the criminal case.
Practical Advice for Potential Plaintiffs
If you are falsely accused and criminally charged due to defamatory statements made to police, consider these crucial points:
- Act Promptly: Recognize that the civil limitation clock starts ticking as soon as you’re aware of the defamatory statements, even if criminal proceedings are ongoing.
- Seek Early Legal Advice: Consulting with a lawyer promptly is critical. Early advice helps preserve your rights without jeopardizing your criminal defence.
- Evaluate Litigation Risks Clearly: Understand that delaying civil claims due to ongoing criminal charges could extinguish your right to sue for defamation entirely if you wait too long.
Conclusion
The ruling in Kulyk v. Guastella underscores the importance of timely addressing civil defamation claims, irrespective of concurrent criminal proceedings. Justice Myers’ decision, grounded in the nuanced interpretation of the Limitations Act, emphasizes an objective standard for initiating defamation claims. Potential plaintiffs must therefore remain vigilant and proactive in safeguarding their legal rights against defamatory accusations, even amidst criminal allegations.
