Advanced Search
- All Databases (248)
- Decisions (76)
- Resources (172)
76 result(s)
-
1.
R. v. Lucas - [1998] 1 SCR 439 - 1998-04-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
Criminal law
(2) A defamatory libel may be expressed directly or by insinuation or irony [...] (b) by any object signifying a defamatory libel otherwise than by words. [...] Defamatory libel can cause long‑lasting or permanent injuries to the victim.
-
2.
Lefolii et al. v. Gouzenko - [1969] SCR 3 - 1968-10-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
Defamation—Libel action—Motion for nonsuit—Judge reserving decision on whether words capable of defamatory meaning until after jury’s verdict—Charge to jury—Propriety of judge referring to motion and difficulties in deciding same. [...] were libellous. He alleged that the quotations in their plain and ordinary meaning were defamatory of the respondent and in a subsequent paragraph said that the words used were meant and are understood to mean that the respondent: [...] The jury was properly charged on the question of libel or no libel. The verdict of “libel” justified the respondent’s action.
-
3.
Crookes v. Newton - 2011 SCC 47 - [2011] 3 SCR 269 - 2011-10-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
Torts — Libel and slander — Publication — Internet — Defendant creating hyperlinks to allegedly defamatory articles — Whether hyperlinking, in and of itself, constitutes publication. [...] When a person follows a hyperlink to a secondary source that contains defamatory words, the actual creator or poster of the defamatory words in the secondary material is the person who is publishing the libel. [...] If one person writes a libel, another repeats it, and a third approves what is written, they all have made the defamatory libel.
-
4.
Botiuk v. Toronto Free Press Publications Ltd. - [1995] 3 SCR 3 - 1995-09-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
76 As set out in Hill, supra, "[i]f one person writes a libel, another repeats it, and a third approves what is written, they all have made the defamatory libel" (para. 176). [...] 123 It is not clear how the trial judge concluded that he would treat all the defamatory publications as one libel. [...] 125 I am not certain from the record that all of the defamatory documents should have been treated as one libel nor that the necessary concerted action was present for a finding of joint and several liability.
-
5.
Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto - [1995] 2 SCR 1130 - 1995-07-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
Torts
"Making Sense of the Libel Chill Debate: Do Libel Laws `Chill' the Exercise of Freedom of Expression?" [...] The earliest evidence in recorded history of any sanction for defamatory statements is in the Mosaic code. [...] If one person writes a libel, another repeats it, and a third approves what is written, they all have made the defamatory libel.
-
6.
Sydney Post Publishing Co. v. Kendall - (1910) 43 SCR 461 - 1910-06-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
The verdict must in cases to justify its being set aside be manifestly wrong, and the alleged libel one admitting of no other construction than a defamatory one. [...] to the jury of looking at the alleged libellous matter as a whole and determining whether under all the facts and circumstances as proved before them it is defamatory of the plaintiff. [...] It is for the jury to say whether alleged defamatory matter published is a libel or not, and the widest latitude is given to them in dealing with it.
-
7.
Grant v. Torstar Corp. - 2009 SCC 61 - [2009] 3 SCR 640 - 2009-12-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
Libel Act, 1792 (U.K.), 32 Geo. 3, c. 60. Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12, s. 14. [...] Anderson, David A. “Is Libel Law Worth Reforming?” (1991‑1992), 140 U. Pa. L. Rev. 487. [...] Gatley on Libel and Slander, 11th ed. by Patrick Milmo and W. V. H. Rogers.
-
8.
McNichol v. Grandy - [1931] SCR 696 - 1931-10-26
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
To shout defamatory words on a deserted moor where no one can hear you, is not a publication. [...] But whether such a person can escape liability for the libel if he knows, or ought to know, that the newspaper is likely to contain libellous matter? [...] for a libel contained in it, if he knows, or ought to know, that the paper is one which is likely to contain a libel, (p. 358.)
-
9.
Cherneskey v. Armadale Publishers Ltd. - [1979] 1 SCR 1067 - 1978-11-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
4. If your answer to number 3 is yes, then are those words defamatory? [...] Every publication of a libel is a new libel, and each publisher is answerable for his act to the same extent as if the calumny originated with him, [...] 4. If your answer to number 3 is yes, then are those words defamatory?
-
10.
Arnott v. College of Physicians - [1954] SCR 538 - 1954-10-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
". The jury found that the words were defamatory of the appellant but had not been published maliciously. [...] The jury found the words were defamatory of the appellant, but not published maliciously. [...] 1. Were the words published defamatory? Answer—Yes. 2. Were they defamatory of Plaintiff?
-
11.
Ross v. Lamport - [1956] SCR 366 - 1956-03-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
4. Are the words defamatory to the plaintiff (a) in their natural and ordinary meaning Yes [...] for libel in Globe and Mail and/or...................................................... [...] Are the words defamatory to the plaintiff... (b) in any of the meanings attributable to them in the innuendo?
-
12.
Douglas v. Tucker - [1952] 1 SCR 275 - 1951-12-17
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
The appellant is responsible for the publication of the defamatory statements which appeared in the newspaper. [...] We are concerned, therefore, only with the claim for libel. I do not think it necessary to go at length into the question whether the words as pleaded are capable of a defamatory meaning. [...] Duncombe v. Daniell 19 was an action for libel based on publication in a newspaper of statements defamatory of a candidate for election.
-
13.
Éditions Écosociété Inc. v. Banro Corp. - 2012 SCC 18 - [2012] 1 SCR 636 - 2012-04-18
Supreme Court JudgmentsInternational law
This is the well‑known problem of “forum shopping” or “libel tourism”. [...] At common law, the tort of defamation crystallizes upon publication of the libellous material, and publication of the libellous material is presumed when it is printed in a book. [...] This is the well-known problem of “forum shopping” or “libel tourism”.
-
14.
Breeden v. Black - 2012 SCC 19 - [2012] 1 SCR 666 - 2012-04-18
Supreme Court JudgmentsInternational law
It is well established in Canadian law that the tort of defamation occurs upon publication of a defamatory statement to a third party. [...] It is also well established that every repetition or republication of a defamatory statement constitutes a new publication. [...] He also accepted, however, that the focus of the trial of the libel actions will be the truth of what was said in the allegedly defamatory statements, which would also appear to be the very substance of the Delaware and Illinois civil actions.
-
15.
Lacarte v. Toronto Board of Education - [1959] SCR 465 - 1959-03-25
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
She sued for damages for libel allegedly contained in her letter of dismissal. [...] The action for the alleged libel was tried before Wells J. and a jury. [...] The wrong complained of by the plaintiff is the printing and publishing of and concerning him certain defamatory words.
-
16.
The Manitoba Free Press Company v. Martin. - (1892) 21 SCR 518 - 1892-12-13
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
To state facts which are libellous is not comment or criticism on anything. [...] That a fair and bonâ fide comment on a matter of public interest is an excuse for what would be otherwise a defamatory publication is admitted. [...] Are these words defamatory in themselves within the definition I have given you ?
-
17.
WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson - 2008 SCC 40 - [2008] 2 SCR 420 - 2008-06-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
Gatley on Libel and Slander, 10th ed. by Patrick Milmo and W. V. H. Rogers. [...] Canadian Libel and Slander Actions. Toronto: Irwin Law, 2004. Mitchell, Paul. [...] See also, R. D. McConchie and D. A. Potts, Canadian Libel and Slander Actions (2004), at p. 340.
-
18.
Sykes v. Fraser - [1974] SCR 526 - 1973-06-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
Whether one member of an associated group of three persons may succeed in a libel action where [...] In the circumstances of this case, the libels alleged were either libels of Baxter, Waisman and Fraser as a group or were not defamatory of any of them. [...] case to establish the defamatory character of the appellant’s statements as against the group of which he was a member.
-
19.
Halls v. Mitchell - [1928] SCR 125 - 1928-02-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
The action was for damages for alleged libel and slander. Wright J. held the plaintiff entitled to recover $500 for libel and $200 for slander. [...] This Court, in its judgment now reported, held that the plaintiff should succeed as to the libels, and allowed the appeal with costs in this Court and in the Appellate Division, and directed judgment to be entered for the plaintiff for $500 damages for libel, and costs [...] The circumstances of the alleged libel are very exceptional, and cases similar, in the nature and origin of the defamatory matter, must have been rare; and it is therefore desirable to be quite sure that we are on the solid ground of fundamental principles.
-
20.
McElroy v. Cowper-Smith and Woodman - [1967] SCR 425 - 1967-05-23
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
Torts
Gatley on Libel and Slander, in the fifth edition, at p. 556, says: Other defamatory words. [...] I see no reason in principle why the publication of these subsequent defamatory words need be proved. [...] Firstly, there is the evidence as to the purpose which the defendant had in uttering the libels, and secondly, exs. 3, 4 and 7, which demonstrated that after the action had been commenced the defendant continued to utter defamatory statements and if anything increased the venemous nature thereof.
-
21.
Thomson v. Lambert - [1938] SCR 253 - 1938-03-25
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
No one would deny the respondents their remedy to repair the injury done to their rights of reputation by the publication of false and defamatory statements concerning them. [...] But the defamatory matter complained of in this action is the same article in the same issue of the same newspaper that formed the basis of the Manitoba actions. [...] The making known the defamatory matter after it has been written to some person other than the person of whom it is written.
-
22.
Green v. Miller - (1901) 31 SCR 177 - 1901-03-18
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
Starkie on Libel and Slander, p. 167; O'Brien v. Clement[33]; Odger on Slander and Libel (3 ed.) p. 2; Capital and Counties Bank v. Henty[34]. [...] The Bosxius Case (2) was one as to solicitors who might be required to write defamatory matter in the course of their business. [...] It is not the business of the insurance companies more than of merchants to write anything defamatory.
-
23.
Davies & Davies Ltd. v. Kott - [1979] 2 SCR 686 - 1979-05-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
Libel—Qualified privilege—Malice—Libel based on letters—Letters capable of conveying defamatory meaning—Letters written on occasion of qualified privilege—Whether trial judge justified in putting the issue of malice before the jury. [...] The trial judge found the letters were capable of conveying a defamatory meaning and that they were written on occasions of qualified privilege. [...] The motive with which a person published defamatory matter can only be inferred from what he did or said or knew.
-
24.
Boucher v. the King - [1951] SCR 265 - 1950-12-18
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
The learned trial judge had been asked by Counsel for the accused to instruct the jury on the nature of blasphematory and defamatory libel. [...] The criminal law as to defamatory libel is declared in Canada in the Criminal Code. [...] Section 317 defines a defamatory libel and section 324 declares that no one commits an offence by publishing any defamatory matter which he, on reasonable grounds, believes to be true and which is relevant to any subject of public interest, the public discussion of which is for the public benefit.
-
25.
Haaretz.com v. Goldhar - 2018 SCC 28 - [2018] 2 SCR 3 - 2018-06-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsH published an article about G, which the latter alleges to be libellous. [...] G commenced an action for libel in Ontario, alleging damage to his reputation. [...] [132] In his amended statement of claim, Mr. Goldhar refers to six statements as defamatory: