Elliott v. Freisen et al., (1984) 1 O.A.C. 376 (CA)

• Judge: Lacourcière, Weatherston and Robins, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: January 12, 1984
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1984), 1 O.A.C. 376 (CA)

Elliott v. Freisen (1984), 1 O.A.C. 376 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Elliott v. Freisen, McGee, Butler, Canadian Newspapers Company Limited, Dixon, Allard, Guillemette and Taylor

Indexed As: Elliott v. Freisen et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Lacourcière, Weatherston and Robins, JJ.A.

January 23, 1984.

Summary:

The plaintiff brought a defamation action against the defendants respecting the publication of certain statements. The defendants moved for determination of a point of law, namely, whether a statement must be false to be libellous, or whether a defamatory statement could be libellous even if true. The defendants also sought a declaration that certain parts of the statement of claim be struck out for failure to comply with the notice requirements of s. 5(1) and the limitation period in s. 6 of the Libel and Slander Act.

The Ontario High Court, in a decision reported in 37 O.R.(2d) 409, struck out certain paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim and also dismissed the action against some of the defendants. The plaintiff appealed. The defendants Freisen and Canadian Newspapers cross-appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal.

Libel and Slander - Topic 684

The statement - Defamatory statements - What constitutes - Libel - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that defamatory statements may be libellous even if true - See paragraph 5.

Libel and Slander - Topic 6065

Practice - Notice of intention to bring action - Sufficiency of contents - Under s. 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act, six weeks' notice to the defendant was a condition precedent to bringing an action for libel in a newspaper - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that the test was whether the matter complained of was sufficiently identified to the newspaper - The court held that two letters of complaint, when read together, constituted sufficient notice under s. 5(1) - See paragraphs 15 to 18.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 3244

Actions in tort - Libel and slander - Limitation periods - Application of - Conditions precedent - Section 8(1) of the Libel and Slander Act provided that no defendant in an action for libel by a newspaper was entitled to the benefit of the limitation periods in ss. 5 and 6 of the Act unless the proprietor's and publisher's names and their address were at the head of the editorials or on the front page - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that substantial compliance with s. 8(1) was sufficient - See paragraphs 6 to 13.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 3246

Actions in tort - Libel and slander - When time begins to run - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that in an action for libel, the time for giving notice of the action and for bringing the action began to run from the time the complainant read the published words; the date of discovery of the falsity of the statements was immaterial - See paragraphs 2 to 5.

Cases Noticed:

Scown v. Herald Publishing Co. (1918), 56 S.C.R. 305, folld. [para. 12].

Pohlman v. Herald Printing Co. of Hamilton Limited (1919), 45 O.L.R. 291, folld. [para. 12].

Grossman v. CFTO-TV Ltd. et al. (1982), 39 O.R.(2d) 498, not appld. [para. 17].

Obernier v. Robertson (1892), 14 P.R. 553, not appld. [para. 17].

Buro v. Southam Press Limited, [1974] 6 W.W.R. 504, not appld. [para. 17].

Statutes Noticed:

Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 237, sect. 2 [para. 5]; sect. 5(1) [paras. 2, 13, 15 to 18]; sect. 6 [paras. 2, 13]; sect. 8(1) [paras. 7, 12].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed.), vol. 28, para. 10, p. 7 [para. 5].

O'Sullivan and Brown, The Law of Defamation (1958), p. 8 [para. 5].

Carter-Ruck, Libel and Slander (1973), p. 53 [para. 5].

Gatley on Libel and Slander (8th Ed.), para. 351, p. 150 [para. 5].

Counsel:

Henry Lang, Q.C., for the appellant;

Patricia D. Jackson and David M. Porter, for the respondent in the main appeal and for the appellants John P. Freisen and Canadian Newspapers Company in the cross-appeal.

This appeal was heard before Lacourciere, Weatherston and Robins, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal, on January 12, 1984. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered orally by Lacourciere, J.A., and released on January 23, 1984.