Key Facts

• Axis claimed defamation and sought damages related to a lease for office space occupied by the City.
• The City vacated the premises early in 2008, citing health concerns after reports of odors and potential mould. The City made public statements about the health risks, prompting Axis to allege defamation.

Issues & Court Findings

1. Defamation Claims:

   • The court concluded that the City's statements were not defamatory.
   • The statements about health concerns were found to be based on genuine concerns and expert advice at the time, thus protected under the defences of truth, fair comment, and qualified privilege.
   • Even if the statements were defamatory, Axis failed to prove damages to its reputation or economic loss resulting from the statements.

2. Lease-related Claims:

   • Axis was partially successful in its claim for damages under the lease.
   • The City was found liable for certain costs, including unpaid maintenance expenses and repairs, but not for others deemed to be normal wear and tear after a long tenancy (from 1985 to 2008).
   • Claims for defamation-related damages, including lost rental income, were dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

3. City’s Counterclaim:

   • The City’s counterclaim of $71,200.55 for costs associated with cleaning and remediation after vacating the premises was dismissed. The court found no conclusive evidence of mould contamination affecting the City's leased space.

Conclusion

• The defamation claim by Axis was dismissed.
• Axis was awarded limited damages under the lease agreement, with interest, but the claim for economic losses related to defamation was not substantiated.
• The City’s counterclaim was also dismissed.
• No exact amount for total monetary award provided.