A senior financial adviser at CIBC has lost his appeal of a decision that struck portions of his lawsuit claiming the bank defamed him during a regulatory investigation into a client complaint.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal on Oct. 10, upholding a lower court ruling that found the worker failed to establish a reasonable cause of action for defamation and libel. The court ordered the appellant to pay $5,000 in costs to the bank.
The worker, who remains employed by CIBC as a senior financial adviser, launched the lawsuit after the bank investigated a complaint from one of his clients. As part of that investigation, CIBC Securities reported the complaint to the Enforcement Department of the New Self-Regulatory Organization of Canada.
The worker alleged that three documents contained defamatory statements: a letter from the regulator to CIBC Securities advising it was commencing an investigation, a Member Events Tracking System report that CIBC Securities sent to the regulator, and a Microsoft Teams chat between the worker and a CIBC employee.
Motion to strike
CIBC and CIBC Securities moved to strike portions of the worker’s amended statement of claim under the Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action. The motion targeted allegations of defamation, libel and negligence.
The motion judge found that neither the letter from the regulator nor the METS report contained the alleged defamatory statements. The judge also determined that even if the regulator’s letter did contain defamatory statements, these were not published by the bank or its securities subsidiary.
The motion judge further found that the Microsoft Teams chat could not be considered a publication within the meaning of the legal elements required to establish defamation.
The judge struck the relevant pleadings and also struck one paragraph of the claim as “scandalous, frivolous or vexatious.” The judge declined to grant leave to amend the pleadings because additional facts could not make the defamation claim viable.
The motion judge did not award costs to either party at that stage.
Appeal arguments
The worker, who represented himself on appeal, argued that the motion judge erred by relying on an improper version of the METS report and by not requiring proof that the document was authentic.
The Court of Appeal rejected this submission. The court found the worker’s argument regarding the authenticity of the METS report was “entirely speculative.”
The court noted that as a document incorporated by reference into the statement of claim, the motion judge was entitled to reference the document in her analysis.
Appeal dismissed
The appeal court found no error in the motion judge’s analysis of the three documents alleged to contain defamatory statements.
The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the worker to pay costs to the bank and its securities subsidiary in the all-inclusive amount of $5,000.
The ruling does not appear to affect the worker’s employment status. The decision indicates he began the legal claim while employed by CIBC as a senior financial adviser and that employment relationship continued through the appeal process.
For more information, see (Plaintiff) v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2025 ONCA 695 (CanLII)
