Cherneskey v. Armdale Publishers Ltd. and King, (1978) 24 N.R. 271 (SCC)

JudgeLaskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Pratte, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateNovember 21, 1978
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1978), 24 N.R. 271 (SCC);[1978] 6 WWR 618;[1978] SCJ No 115 (QL);90 DLR (3d) 321;1978 CanLII 20 (SCC);7 CCLT 69;[1979] 1 SCR 1067;24 NR 271

Cherneskey v. Armdale Publishers Ltd. (1978), 24 N.R. 271 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Cherneskey v. Armdale Publishers Limited and King

Indexed As: Cherneskey v. Armdale Publishers Ltd. and King

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Pratte, JJ.

November 21, 1978.

Summary:

This case arose out of the plaintiff's claim against the publisher and editor of a newspaper for damages for defamation. The newspaper published a letter to the editor from two law students, which attacked the plaintiff lawyer and city alderman as a racist for a public position he took on a matter before the Saskatoon City Council. The plaintiff brought an action against the publisher and editor of the newspaper in defamation. No action was brought against the law students who wrote the letter, nor were they called as witnesses. Both the publisher and the editor admitted that the letter did not express their honest opinion of the plaintiff. The trial judge refused to leave the defence of fair comment with the jury, because there was no evidence that the letter was an honest expression of the defendants' opinion, which was essential to the establishment of the defence of fair comment. The jury allowed the plaintiff's action and awarded him $25,000.00 damages. The defendants' appealed on the ground that the trial judge erred in refusing to leave with the jury the defence of fair comment. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in a judgment reported [1977] 5 W.W.R. 155; 71 D.L.R.(3d) 180, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The plaintiff appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the judgment at trial. The Supreme Court of Canada held that, where the statement made was defamatory, the burden was on the defendants in establishing a defence of fair comment to prove that the letter was an honest expression of their opinion, notwithstanding that as the publishers they were not the writers of the letter. See paragraphs 18 to 33, 40 and 43 to 51.

Dickson, J., dissenting, was of the opinion that the defence of fair comment should have been left with the jury. Dickson, J., was of the opinion that a defendant should succeed on a defence of fair comment if he shows that the comment was objectively fair and the plaintiff does not establish malice on the part of the defendant. Further, Dickson, J., stated that it should not be required to establish the defence of fair comment that the newspaper publishing such a letter agreed with the contents. See paragraphs 52 to 85.

Libel and Slander - Topic 641

The statement - What constitutes defamatory statement - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that defamation was any imputation which may tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally or to expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule - See paragraphs 9, 13.

Libel and Slander - Topic 3107

Defences - Fair comment - Elements of defence of fair comment - Honest expression of opinion - The Supreme Court of Canada held that, when a statement is found to be defamatory, the defendant to establish the defence of fair comment must show that the opinion expressed in the defamatory comment was an honest expression of opinion - The Supreme Court of Canada held that, where a newspaper publishes a defamatory letter to the editor, the newspaper as a defendant must also prove that the letter was an honest expression of the newspaper's opinion - See paragraphs 18 to 33, 40 and 43 to 51.

Libel and Slander - Topic 3118

Defences - Fair comment - Evidence - Burden of proof - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the burden was on the defendant to prove every element of the defence of fair comment - See paragraphs 14, 24 and 34 to 36.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4003

Malice - Effect of malice - The Supreme Court of Canada held that there was no burden on the plaintiff to prove malice until the defendant establishes a defence of qualified privilege or fair comment - See paragraphs 16 to 17 and 34 to 39.

Libel and Slander - Topic 6128

Practice - Pleading - Defamation - The Supreme Court of Canada noted that the plaintiff's pleading of defamation was couched in the long accepted mode of pleading defamation, where the plaintiff pleaded "that the said heading and letter as a whole would tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally and the citizens of Saskatoon in particular and that the words are defamatory" - See paragraphs 9 and 13.

Cases Noticed:

Jones v. Skelton, [1963] 1 W.L.R. 1362, appld. [para. 15].

Turner v. M.G.M. Pictures Limited, [1950] 1 All E.R. 449, appld. [para. 18]; consd. [para. 70].

Slim et al. v. Daily Telegraph Ltd. et al., [1968] 1 All E.R. 497, appld. [paras. 20 and 66].

Plymouth Mutual Co-operative and Industrial Society v. Traders' Publishing Association, [1906] 1 K.B. 403, appld. [para. 21].

White & Co. v. Credit Reform Association and Credit Index, [1905] 1 K.B. 653, refd to. [para. 21].

Lyon and Lyon v. Daily Telegraph Ltd., [1943] 2 All E.R. 316, dist. [para. 25].

Trust (N.Z.) Limited v. Holloway, [1960] 1 W.L.R. 997, appld. [para. 30].

Arnold v. The King-Emperor (1914), 83 L.J.P.C. 299, appld. [para. 32].

Egger v. Viscount Chelmsford et al., [1965] 1 Q.B. 248, consd. [paras. 37 and 81].

Silkin v. Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd., [1958] 1 W.L.R. 743, appld. [para. 47].

Sin v. Stretch (1936), 52 T.L.R. 669, appld. [para. 58].

O'Brien v. Clement (1846), 15 M. & W. 435, appld. [para. 58].

Merivale v. Carson (1887), 20 Q.B.D. 275, appld. [para. 66].

Lyon and Lyon v. Daily Telegraph, [1943] 2 All E.R. 316, appld. [para. 66].

Thomas V. Bradbury (1906), 75 L.J.K.B. 726, appld. [para. 66].

Adams v. Sunday Pictorial Newspapers (1920) Ltd. and Champion, [1951] 1 K.B. 354, consd. [para. 70].

Lyle-Samuel v. Odhams, Ltd., [1920] 1 K.B. 135, consd. [para. 71].

Hennesy v. Wright (1888), 4 T.L.R. 574, consd. [paras. 71 and 82].

Silkin v. Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd., [1958] 2 All E.R. 516, consd. [para. 74].

Bulletin Co. Ltd. v. Sheppard (1917), 55 S.C.R. 454, consd. [para. 75].

Winnipeg Steel Granary and Culvert Co. v. Canada Ingot Iron Culvert Company (1912), 3 W.W.R. 356, consd. [para. 75].

Stopes v. Sutherland, [1924] H.L. Printed Cases 375, consd. [para. 78].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Carter - Ruck, Libel and Slander (1972) [para. 76].

Duncan and Neill on Defamation (1978), p. 62, para. 12.02; p. 68, para. 12.14 [para. 68].

Gatley on Libel and Slander (7th Ed. 1974), p. 5, para. 4 [para. 13]; p. 300, para. 716 [para. 68]; p. 308 [paras. 46, 68]; pp. 309-10, para. 731, p. 342, para. 789, paras. 729, 763, 765, 769 [para. 68].

Faulks Commission on Defamation (1975), Cmd. 5909, pp. 70-71 [para. 81].

Fleming, The Law of Torts (5th Ed. 1977), pp. 579-81 [paras. 76, 82].

Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Ed.), vol. 24, p. 76, para. 131 [para. 70].

Salmond on Torts (17th Ed. 1977), pp. 180 [para. 75]; 187-8 [para. 76].

Tacitus, History, vol. 1, para. 1 [para. 60].

Counsel:

D.E. Gauley, Q.C. and Peter Foley, for the appellant;

R.H. McKercher, Q.C. and N.G. Gabrielson, for the respondent.

This case was heard on December 12 and 13, 1977, at Ottawa, Ontario, before LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, RITCHIE, SPENCE, PIGEON, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY and PRATTE, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On November 21, 1978, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

RITCHIE, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 42;

MARTLAND, J. - see paragraphs 43 to 51;

DICKSON, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 52 to 89.

LASKIN, C.J.C., concurred with RITCHIE and MARTLAND, JJ.

PIGEON and PRATTE, JJ., concurred with RITCHIE, J.

BEETZ, J., concurred with MARTLAND, J.

SPENCE and ESTEY, JJ., concurred with DICKSON, J.

To continue reading

Request your trial
157 practice notes
  • Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, (1995) 184 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • February 20, 1995
    ...285, refd to. [para. 101]. Boucher v. R., [1951] S.C.R. 265, refd to. [para. 101]. Cherneskey v. Armdale Publishers Ltd. and King, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1067; 24 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. United States of America v. Cotroni; United States of America v. El Zein, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1469; 96 N.R. 321; ......
  • Bent v. Platnick, 2020 SCC 23
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • September 10, 2020
    ...and Surgeons of Saskatchewan, 2018 SKCA 53; Foulidis v. Baker, 2014 ONCA 529, 323 O.A.C. 258; Cherneskey v. Armadale Publishers Ltd., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1067; Jerome v. Anderson, [1964] S.C.R. 291; Hodgson v. Canadian Newspapers Co. (2000), 49 O.R. (3d) 161; Smith v. Cross, 2009 BCCA 529, 99 B......
  • Prud'homme v. Prud'homme, 2002 SCC 85
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 20, 2002
    ...54]. L. v. Éditions de la Cité Inc., [1960] C.S. 485 (Qué.), refd to. [para. 61]. Chernesky v. Armadale Publishers Ltd. and King, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1067; 24 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. Paquet v. Rousseau, [1996] R.R.A. 1156 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 61]. Conseil de la Nation huronne v. L......
  • Soliman v. Bordman,
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • October 21, 2021
    ...7; Grant v. Torstar, 2009 SCC 61 at para. 31; WIC Radio v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40 at para. 1; Cherneskey v. Armadale Publishers Ltd., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1067. [32] Walsh Energy Inc. (c.o.b. The Energy Centre) v. Better Business Bureau of Ottawa-Hull Inc. (c.o.b. Better Business Bureau Serving Ea......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
148 cases
  • Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, (1995) 184 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • February 20, 1995
    ...285, refd to. [para. 101]. Boucher v. R., [1951] S.C.R. 265, refd to. [para. 101]. Cherneskey v. Armdale Publishers Ltd. and King, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1067; 24 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. United States of America v. Cotroni; United States of America v. El Zein, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1469; 96 N.R. 321; ......
  • Bent v. Platnick, 2020 SCC 23
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • September 10, 2020
    ...and Surgeons of Saskatchewan, 2018 SKCA 53; Foulidis v. Baker, 2014 ONCA 529, 323 O.A.C. 258; Cherneskey v. Armadale Publishers Ltd., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1067; Jerome v. Anderson, [1964] S.C.R. 291; Hodgson v. Canadian Newspapers Co. (2000), 49 O.R. (3d) 161; Smith v. Cross, 2009 BCCA 529, 99 B......
  • Prud'homme v. Prud'homme, 2002 SCC 85
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 20, 2002
    ...54]. L. v. Éditions de la Cité Inc., [1960] C.S. 485 (Qué.), refd to. [para. 61]. Chernesky v. Armadale Publishers Ltd. and King, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1067; 24 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. Paquet v. Rousseau, [1996] R.R.A. 1156 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 61]. Conseil de la Nation huronne v. L......
  • Soliman v. Bordman,
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • October 21, 2021
    ...7; Grant v. Torstar, 2009 SCC 61 at para. 31; WIC Radio v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40 at para. 1; Cherneskey v. Armadale Publishers Ltd., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1067. [32] Walsh Energy Inc. (c.o.b. The Energy Centre) v. Better Business Bureau of Ottawa-Hull Inc. (c.o.b. Better Business Bureau Serving Ea......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Torts. Sixth Edition
    • June 25, 2020
    ...CA) .................................................................................311 Cherneskey v Armadale Publishers Ltd (1978), [1979] 1 SCR 1067, 90 DLR (3d) 321 .......................................................................................... 442 Cherry v Borsman, 1992 CanL......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Canadian Libel and Slander Actions
    • June 17, 2004
    ...rev'd on other grounds (1974), 53 D.L.R. (3d) 79 (Sask. C.A.) 285, 601, 698, 699, 709, 723 Cherneskey v. Armadale Publishers Ltd., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1067 289, 300, 335 , 337, 351, 354, 361, 574, 601, 775 Cherry v. Ivey (1982), 136 D.L.R. (3d) 381 (Ont. H.C.J.) 113 Cheyne v. Alberta, 2003 ABQB......
  • Fair Comment
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Canadian Libel and Slander Actions
    • June 17, 2004
    ...OF FREE SPEECH The defence of fair comment is a cornerstone of free speech in Canada. In Cherneshey v. Armadak Publishers Ltd., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1067, all nine Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized the importance of this defence to Canadian democracy. Although Dickson J. (Spence......
  • Express Malice
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Canadian Libel and Slander Actions
    • June 17, 2004
    ...of the defamatory expression defeats the defences of qualified privilege and fair comment. Cherneskey v. Armadale Publishing Ltd., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1067, per Ritchie J. (Laskin CJ. and Pigeon and Pratte JJ. concurring) at para. 21: In cases where the essential ingredients of either the plea ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT