Forms of Defamatory Meaning

• Author: David A. Potts
• Profession: Barrister, Bar of Ontario
• Pages: 265-272

265

 : Forms of Defamatory Meaning

A. THE THREE BASIC FORMS OF DEFAMATORY EXPRESSION

e followi ng is e xtracted from Roger D. McConchie and Dav id A . Potts,

Canadian Libel and Slander Actions (Irw in Law, ) at –:

e caselaw suggests that defamatory imputat ions a rise in one of t hree

ways:

i) e litera l meaning: for example, where the plainti has been ca lled a

thief or a murderer it is not necessary to go beyond the words themselves.

is is called t he “natural and ordinary” mea ning in the case authorities.

ii) An inferential meaning: Here the sting of the defamation lies not so much

in the expression itse lf as in the meaning that the ordinary person, w ith-

out special knowledge, will infer from it. is meaning is a matter of im-

pression. is is also called a “natural and ordinar y meaning.” It is al so

sometimes referred to a s “popular” or “false” innuendo. A di scussion of

the nature of inferential meanings is contained in the judgment of Lord

Reid in Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd., []  All E.R.  at – (H.L.):

What the ordinary man would infer without special knowledge ha s

generally been called the natural and ordinary meani ng of the words.

But that expression is rather misleadi ng in t hat it conceal s the fac t

that there are t wo elements in it. Sometimes it is not necessary to go

beyond the words themselves a s where the plainti has been called

a thief or a murderer. But more oen the sting is not so much in t he

words themselves as in what the ordinar y man will in fer from them

and that is also regarded as pa rt of their natural and ordinar y mean-

ing. Here t here would be nothi ng libelous in s aying that an inquiry