Background
Munchang Choi brought a Civil Resolution Tribunal claim seeking damages for mental distress arising from an interaction with Monik Malvania at a car dealership. Ali Paridar, another dealership employee, supplied a witness statement in Malvania’s defence. The Tribunal dismissed Choi’s claim, and Choi did not seek judicial review.
Choi later sued Malvania and Paridar in the Supreme Court of British Columbia for defamation, intentional infliction of mental suffering, conspiracy to injure, and negligent misrepresentation. A chambers judge struck the action without leave to amend after proceeding in Choi’s absence. Another judge sealed portions of the court record containing Paridar’s witness statement and without-prejudice settlement communications. Choi appealed both orders.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from the order striking the action. The chambers judge was entitled to proceed after Choi, who had filed written materials, declined opportunities to attend in person or by video. The mental-suffering claim impermissibly relitigated a matter finally decided by the Tribunal; the Tribunal’s limited remedies and different procedures did not deprive its dismissal of legal effect.
The claims based on Paridar’s witness statement were also bound to fail because statements made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings are protected by absolute privilege. That protection defeated the pleaded claims for defamation and negligent misrepresentation, as well as the conspiracy claim based on discussions leading to preparation of the statement. These defects were fundamental and could not be cured by amendment.
The Court allowed the sealing-order appeal in part. Absolute privilege protects a witness from civil liability but does not make the witness’s statement confidential. The Court therefore set aside the broader order and substituted one sealing only the redacted portion of a without-prejudice settlement communication attached to Choi’s affidavit. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs in both appeals.
Key Takeaways
- A claimant’s choice to proceed before a tribunal with limited monetary jurisdiction does not permit the claimant to relitigate the dismissed claim later in superior court.
- Absolute privilege can defeat at the pleadings stage civil claims founded entirely on a witness statement submitted in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding.
- Absolute privilege and confidentiality are distinct: a privileged witness statement is not sealed merely because it cannot support a lawsuit, while confidential settlement communications may justify a narrowly tailored sealing order.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces finality across tribunal and court proceedings and confirms that repackaging previously rejected allegations under new tort labels will not avoid the abuse-of-process doctrine. It also clarifies the breadth of the protection afforded to participants who provide evidence in legal proceedings.
At the same time, the ruling emphasizes that limits on public access require independent justification under the open-court principles stated in Sherman Estate. The public interest in access continues after litigation ends, and sealing orders must distinguish genuinely confidential settlement material from non-confidential evidence that is merely immune from suit.