Hodgson v. Canadian Newspapers Co. et al., (1998) 68 O.T.C. 81 (GD)

• Judge: Lane, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: July 03, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1998), 68 O.T.C. 81 (GD)

Hodgson v. Cdn. Newspapers Co. (1998), 68 O.T.C. 81 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] O.T.C. TBEd. JL.030

Robert Hodgson (plaintiff) v. Canadian Newspapers Company Limited, The Globe and Mail Division of Canadian Newspapers Company Limited, A. Roy Megarry, William Thorsell, Timothy Pritchard and Jock Ferguson (defendants)

(File No. 75812/91Q)

Indexed As: Hodgson v. Canadian Newspapers Co. et al.

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Lane, J.

July 3, 1998.

Summary:

The plaintiff was the Regional Engineer for the Region of York. Beginning on March 22, 1991, the defendant Ferguson wrote, and the defendant The Globe and Mail published, a series of articles containing serious allegations against the plaintiff including allegations of dishonesty and misconduct. As a direct result of the articles, the plaintiff was dismissed by the Region on April 25, 1991. The plaintiff sued the defendants for damages for libel. The defendants relied on the defences of justification, qualification and fair comment.

The Ontario Court (General Division) rejected the defences and allowed the action. The plain and obvious meaning of the articles were "devastatingly defamatory". The court awarded the plaintiff damages totalling $880,000: $380,000 for special damages (lost income and pension benefits, past and future), $400,000 for general and aggravated damages and $100,000 for punitive damages.

Libel and Slander - Topic 684

The statement - What constitutes defamatory statements - Libel - What constitutes a defamatory statement - See paragraphs 41 to 52.

Libel and Slander - Topic 903

The statement - Innuendo - What constitutes - See paragraphs 53 to 80.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2983

Defences - Qualified privilege - When available - See paragraphs 423 to 454.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2988

Defences - Qualified privilege - Loss of - Lack of honest belief or existence of malice - See paragraphs 487 to 497.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2989

Defences - Qualified privilege - Loss of - Conduct of publisher - See paragraph 453.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2996

Defences - Qualified privilege - Public duty - Statements to or by government - See paragraphs 423 to 454.

Libel and Slander - Topic 3003

Defences - Statutory privilege - When available - See paragraphs 432 to 452.

Libel and Slander - Topic 3107

Defences - Fair comment - Elements of fair comment - Honest expression of opinion - See paragraphs 465 to 477.

Libel and Slander - Topic 3114

Defences - Fair comment - What constitutes fair comment - See paragraphs 455 to 486.

Libel and Slander - Topic 3115

Defences - Fair comment - Comment on public documents - See paragraphs 423 to 454.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4007

Malice - General - What constitutes malice - See paragraphs 487 to 497.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4063

Malice - As a bar to defence of fair comment or qualified privilege - Requirement of express or actual malice - See paragraphs 487 to 497.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4146

Malice - Evidence - Actual malice - See paragraphs 487 to 497.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4405

Damages - General - Special damages - See paragraphs 500 to 511.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4423

Damages - General damages - Measure of - Elements and considerations - See paragraphs 512 to 525.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4428

Damages - General damages - Measure of - Aggravated damages - See paragraphs 512 to 525.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4429

Damages - General damages - Measure of - Exemplary or punitive damages - When available - See paragraphs 526 and 527.

Cases Noticed:

Jones v. Skelton, [1963] 3 All E.R. 952 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

Netupsky v. Craig, [1971] 1 O.R. 51 (C.A.), dist. [para. 25].

Truth (N.Z.) Ltd. v. Holloway (1961), 80 N.Z.L.R. 22 (P.C.), dist. [para. 27].

Sungravure Pty. Ltd. v. Middle East Airlines, [1975] 49 A.L.J.R. 117 (H.C.), dist. [para. 29].

Nevill v. Fine Art and General Insurance Co., [1897] A.C. 68 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 34].

Slim v. Daily Telegraph, [1968] 1 All E.R. 497; [1968] 2 Q.B. 157 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36]

O'Malley v. O'Callaghan et al. (1992), 128 A.R. 28; 89 D.L.R.(4th) 577 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 36].

Lynch & Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guarantee Co., [1971] 1 O.R. 28 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 58].

Mills v. York (Regional Municipality) Land Division Committee (1975), 9 O.R.(2d) 349 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 87].

Hay v. Burlington (City) (1981), 38 O.R.(2d) 476 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

Pinetree Development Co. v. Ontario (Minister of Housing) (1977), 14 O.R.(2d) 687 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 87].

Cooper v. Lawson (1838), 8 A. & E. 746 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 400].

Hare v. Better Business Bureau of Vancouver, [1948] 1 W.W.R. 569 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 402].

Globe and Mail Ltd. v. Boland, [1960] 2 S.C.R. 203, refd to. [para. 423].

Banks v. Globe and Mail Ltd., [1961] S.C.R. 474, refd to. [para. 423].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 424].

Botiuk v. Bardyn et al., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 3; 186 N.R. 1; 85 O.A.C. 81; 126 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [para. 424].

Parsons v. Windsor Star (1989), 71 O.R.(2d) 5 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 427].

Moises v. Canadian Newspapers Co. (1996), 76 B.C.A.C. 263; 125 W.A.C. 263; 24 B.C.L.R.(3d) 211 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 427].

Hansen v. Nugget Publishers Ltd. (1927), 61 O.L.R. 239 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 433].

Fleming v. Newton (1848), 9 E.R. 797 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 443].

Searles v. Scarlett, [1892] 2 Q.B. 56 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 443].

Smith v. Dun (1911), 19 W.L.R. 17 (Man. K.B.), affd. on other grounds (1911), 19 W.L.R. 518 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 443].

Fletcher-Gordon v. Southam Inc. (1997), 143 D.L.R.(4th) 560 (B.C.S.C.), not folld. [para. 444].

Bennett v. Sun Publishing Co., [1972] 4 W.W.R. 642 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 450].

O'Brien v. Marquis of Salisbury (1889), 6 T.L.R. 133 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 458].

Kemsley v. Foot, [1952] A.C. 345 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 459].

Hunt v. Star Newspaper, [1908] 2 K.B. 309 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 460].

Telnikoff v. Matusevitch, [1990] 3 All E.R. 865 (C.A.), affd. [1991] 4 All E.R. 817; 135 N.R. 281 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 465].

Cherneskey v. Armadale Publishers Ltd. and King (1978), 24 N.R. 271; 90 D.L.R.(3d) 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 467].

Peddie v. Kerr, [1996] O.J. No. 2551 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 467].

Campbell v. Spottiswoode (1869), 3 B&S 769, refd to. [para. 476].

Vogel v. C.B.C., [1982] 3 W.W.R. 97 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 476].

Kemsley v. Foot, [1952] All E.R. 501 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 478].

London Artists v. Littler, [1969] 2 All E.R. 193 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 480].

Horrocks v. Lowe, [1975] A.C. 135 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 487].

Broadway Approvals Ltd. v. Odhams Press Ltd., [1965] 2 All E.R. 523 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 491].

Ley v. Hamilton (1935), 153 L.T. 384 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 512].

Statutes Noticed:

Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L-12, sect. 3(1), sect. 3(6), sect. 3(7) [para. 432]; sect. 22 [para. 405]; sect. 23 [para. 479]; sect. 24 [para. 466].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Raymond, E., The Law of Defamation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1994) (Looseleaf Supp.), para. 10.3, pp. 10-12.1, 10-12.2 [para. 401]; pp.13-185 to 13-188 [para. 426]; para. 15.3(1), pp. 15-15, 15-16 [para. 461].

Duncan and Neill, Defamation, p. 59, para. 12.07 [para. 480]; para. 11.03 [para. 401]; para. 11.07 [para. 404]; pp. 63, 64, para. 12.14 [para. 465]; p. 59 [para. 480].

Duncan, Colin, and Hoolahan, A.T., A Guide to Defamation Practice (2nd Ed. 1958), pp. 26, 27 [para. 30]; para. 11.03 [para. 401]; para. 1107 [para. 404].

Gatley, Libel and Slander (4th Ed. 1953), para. 12.21 [para. 456]; para. 16.2 [para. 487]; para. 16.18 [para. 491].

Gatley, Libel and Slander (8th Ed. 1981), para. 4, p. 5 [para. 38]; para. 102, pp. 102, 103 [paras. 35, 37]; paras. 120, 121, pp. 64, 65 [para. 34]; paras. 128, 129, pp. 127, 128 [para. 33]; para. 351 [para. 399]; para. 364 [para. 403]; para. 1075, pp. 446-447 [para. 24]; para. 12.24 to 12.26 [para. 476]; para. 1311, p. 1312 [para. 36]; para. 1390 [para. 400]

Gatley, Libel and Slander (9th Ed. 1998), para. 6.26 [para. 442]; para. 12.10, 12.11 [para. 460].

Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Ed. 1955), vol. 24, para. 131 [para. 474].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed. 1976), vol. 28, para. 145 [para. 474].

Klar, Lewis N., Tort Law (2nd Ed. 1996), p. 574 [para. 426].

Odgers, Blake W., Digest of the Law of Libel and Slander (6th Ed. 1929), p. 166 [para. 459].

Oxford Dictionary [para. 59].

Rainaldi, Linda A., Remedies in Tort (1998) (Looseleaf Supp.), vol. 1, p. 6-56 [para. 478].

Counsel:

Martin Henderson and Philip Healey, for the plaintiff;

Bruce MacDougall, Q.C., and T. Trembley, for the defendants.

This action was heard on Sept. 9, 17-20, 26, 27, 30; Oct. 1; Nov. 4-7, 13-15, 18-22, 25-27, 29; Dec. 2-6, 18, 1996; Jan. 7-10, 13-17, 20-22; March 20, 21, 24-27; April 1-3, 8-11, 14-18, 21, 22, 28-30; May 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 12-15, 21, 22 and 23, before Lane, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who delivered the following judgment on July 3, 1998.