Laufer v. Bucklaschuk, (1999) 145 Man.R.(2d) 1 (CA)

• Judge: Scott, C.J.M., Helper and Monnin, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: October 07, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1999), 145 Man.R.(2d) 1 (CA);1999 CanLII 5073 (MB CA);181 DLR (4th) 83;[2000] 2 WWR 462;[1999] MJ No 553 (QL);145 Man R (2d) 1;218 WAC 1;93 ACWS (3d) 635

Laufer v. Bucklaschuk (1999), 145 Man.R.(2d) 1 (CA);

    218 W.A.C. 1

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.006

Carl Laufer (plaintiff/respondent) v. John Bucklaschuk (defendant/appellant)

(AI 98-30-03893)

Indexed As: Laufer v. Bucklaschuk

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Scott, C.J.M., Helper and Monnin, JJ.A.

December 20, 1999.

Summary:

Laufer successfully sued the defendant for defamation. The jury awarded Laufer general damages, aggravated damages and punitive damages and directed that the defendant make a public apology. Laufer moved for judgment in accordance with the jury verdict and also requested that the judgment include an allowance for loss of opportunity to invest. The defendant moved for a judgment that did not include an order requiring an apology and that reduced the damages award.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 128 Man.R.(2d) 156, held that the judgment should not include a direction to make a public apology. The court declined to interfere with the jury's award of damages and awarded an allowance for loss of opportunity to invest. The defen­dant appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Queen's Bench for a new trial.

Editor's note: For related cases, see 131 Man.R.(2d) 119; W.A.C. 119 and 134 Man.R.(2d) 253; 193 W.A.C. 253.

Libel and Slander - Topic 22

General - Definitions - Defamation defined - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that "defamation occurs when words are published to a third person that contain an imputation which tends to lower the plain­tiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally or expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule. To be actionable, the words must be reasonably understood by others in a defamatory sense. Words may be defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning, they may carry an implied meaning (true innuendo) and/or an extended meaning (the false in­nuendo). Unless the literal meaning is plain and obvious, the plaintiff must plead what he alleges the words were intended to mean" - See paragraph 23.

Libel and Slander - Topic 652

The statement - What constitutes defama­tory statements - General principles - Test for - Laufer sued the defendant for defam­ation, alleging 19 defamatory statements by the defendant - The trial judge found seven of the statements capable of being defama­tory and left them with the jury - The defendant appealed, asserting that the trial judge failed to determine which meaning or meanings, as pleaded, each statement was capable of bearing - The Manitoba Court of Appeal agreed that the trial judge failed to adequately apply the correct test to the preliminary question - The failure to discharge his preliminary responsibilities on the question of law led inevitably to error in the charge to the jury - See para­graphs 36 to 48.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2988

Defences - Qualified privilege - Loss of - Lack of honest belief or existence of mal­ice - Laufer sued the defendant for dam­ages for defamation - The defendant claimed qualified privilege - The trial judge found there was sufficient evidence of malice to go to the jury - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that the test was whether there was evidence raising a prob­ablity of malice, not merely a possibility - Further, the jury was given an incomplete and inaccurate explanation as to what constituted malice - See paragraphs 71 to 104.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4426

Damages - General damages - Measure of - Jury charge - Laufer successfully sued the defendant for damages for defamation -The jury awarded damages totalling $2 million - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the award of damages was clearly excessive and that the jury must have been guided by erroneous principles and unduly influenced by plaintiff's counsel's closing remarks - See paragraphs 108 to 118.

Practice - Topic 5389

Dismissal of action - Application or motion for dismissal - Nonsuit - At close of plaintiff's case - Procedure - The plain­tiff sued the defendant for damages for defamation - The defendant pleaded qual­ified privilege - At the close of the plain­tiff's case, the defendant moved for a nonsuit on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to adduce evidence of malice suffi­cient to be put to the jury - The trial judge put the defendant to an election whether to call evidence - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that the trial judge could not be faulted for requiring the defendant to elect, where the defendant failed to make clear which type of motion for nonsuit was being advanced - See paragraphs 62 to 70.

Practice - Topic 5390

Dismissal of action - Application or motion for dismissal - Nonsuit - At close of plaintiff's case - Evidence and proof - The plaintiff sued the defendant for dam­ages for defamation - At the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendant moved for nonsuit to dismiss the action - The trial judge put the defendant to an election whether to call evidence since it would likely come to an issue regarding the suffi­ciency of the evidence rather than the total lack of evidence - The defendant appealed on the basis that the defence of qualified privilege pertained and the plaintiff, there­fore, had an onus to prove malice - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that the trial judge could not be faulted for putting the defendant to an election, where the defendant failed to make clear which type of nonsuit motion was being advanced - See paragraphs 62 to 70.

Cases Noticed:

Jones v. Skelton, [1963] 1 W.L.R. 1362 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd., [1963] 2 All E.R. 151 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 27].

Slim v. Daily Telegraph Ltd., [1968] 1 All E.R. 497 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Sungravure Pty. Ltd. v. Middle East Air­lines Airliban S.A.L. (1974-1975), 134 C.L.R. 1 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

Yelash v. In Print Publishing Co., [1972] N.Z.L.R. 83 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

Thomas v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. and Sanders, [1981] 4 W.W.R. 289; 27 A.R. 547 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

Farrell v. St. John's Publishing Co. et al. (1982), 35 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 99 A.P.R. 181 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 33].

Jones v. Bennett (1968), 63 W.W.R.(N.S.) 1 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Allan v. Bushnell T.V. Co. (1969), 4 D.L.R.(3d) 212 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Hodgson v. Canadian Newspapers Co. et al. (1998), 68 O.T.C. 81; 39 O.R.(3d) 235 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 35].

Netupsky et al. v. Craig et al., [1971] 1 O.R. 51 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1; 126 D.L.R.(4th) 129, refd to. [para. 45].

Ross v. Lamport, [1955] 4 D.L.R. 826 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

Turner v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Ltd., [1950] 1 All E.R. 449 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 52].

O'Malley v. O'Callaghan et al. (1992), 128 A.R. 28; 89 D.L.R.(4th) 577 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 58].

Petit (Lou) Trucking Ltd. v. Petit (1990), 64 Man.R.(2d) 139 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

Parry v. Aluminium Corp., [1940] 162 L.T. 236, refd to. [para. 63].

Taylor et al. v. Despard et al., [1956] O.R. 963 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

Surfwood Supply Ltd. v. General Alarms Ltd., [1976] 3 W.W.R. 93 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 67].

Roberge v. Huberman et al. (1999), 121 B.C.A.C. 28; 198 W.A.C. 28 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

Copper Industries v. Hill (1975), 12 S.A.S.R. 292 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 67].

Compaq Computer Australia Ltd. v. How­ard Merry, David & Ors, [1998] 968 F.C.A., refd to. [para. 67].

Residues Treatment & Trading Co. et al. v. Southern Resources Ltd. et al. (1989), 52 S.A.S.R. 54 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 67].

Eagleson v. Dowbiggan et al. (1998), 113 O.A.C. 195 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

Horrocks v. Lowe, [1975] A.C. 135 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 72].

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. 73].

Botiuk v. Toronto Free Press Publications Ltd. - see Botiuk v. Bardyn et al.

Davies & Davies Ltd. v. Kott, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 686; 27 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 75].

McKinnon et al. v. Dauphin (Rural Munic­ipality), [1996] 3 W.W.R. 127; 108 Man.R.(2d) 163 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 77].

Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada et al. v. Dalrymple, [1965] S.C.R. 302, refd to. [para. 84].

Silbernagel v. Empire Stevedoring Co. (1979), 18 B.C.L.R. 384 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 88].

Green v. Miller (1903), 33 S.C.R. 193, refd to. [para. 90].

Walker and Walker Brothers Quarries Ltd. v. CFTO Ltd. et al. (1987), 19 O.A.C. 10; 59 O.R.(2d) 104 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 110].

Derrickson et al. v. Tomat et al. (1992), 9 B.C.A.C. 119; 19 W.A.C. 119; 88 D.L.R.(4th) 401 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 115].

Ross v. Lamport, [1956] S.C.R. 366, refd to. [para. 116].

Quintal v. Datta and Skochylas (1988), 68 Sask.R. 104 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 117].

Cousineau v. Vancouver, [1926] 3 D.L.R. 265 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 117].

Hallren v. Holden, [1913] 12 D.L.R. 570 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 117].

Kobs v. Merchants Hotel et al. (1990), 70 Man.R.(2d) 178 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 119].

Melnychuk v. Moore and Associated Beer Distributors Ltd. (1989), 57 Man.R.(2d) 174 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 119].

Doyle v. Sparrow (1979), 27 O.R.(2d) 206 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 124].

Amalgamated Transit Union et al. v. Inde­pendent Canadian Transit Union et al., [1997] 7 W.W.R. 696; 203 A.R. 204 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 124].

Goertz v. Goertz Estate et al. (1998), 225 A.R. 142 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 125].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bladon, G.L., NonSuit - Heads I Win, Tails I Don't Lose (1993), 15 Adv. Q. 425 [para. 67].

Brown, Raymond E., The Law of Defama­tion in Canada (2nd Ed. 1994), vol. 1, pp. 19-26 to 19.30.3 [para. 24]; 23-5 [para. 124].

Gatley, Libel and Slander (8th Ed. 1981), pp. 68 [para. 32]; 565 [para. 63].

Gertner, Eric, Studies in Civil Procedure (1979), p. 169 [para. 67].

Rock, Allan, The Principles of Non-Suit in Ontario, in Gertner, Eric, Studies in Civil Procedure (1979), p. 169 [para. 67].

Sopinka, John, The Trial of an Action (2nd Ed. 1998), generally [para. 63].

Counsel:

R.B. McNicol, Q.C., and E.B. Eva, for the appellant;

M.N. Trachtenberg, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on September 8 and 9 and October 7, 1999, before Scott, C.J.M., Helper and Monnin, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. On December 20, 1999, Scott, C.J.M, and Helper, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court.