Ross v. New Brunswick Teachers' Association et al.,

• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Judge: Daigle, C.J.N.B., Turnbull and Larlee, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2001 NBCA 62
• Citation: (2001), 238 N.B.R.(2d) 112 (CA),2001 NBCA 62,238 NBR (2d) 112,201 DLR (4th) 75,6 CCLT (3d) 171,[2001] NBJ No 198 (QL),105 ACWS (3d) 975,(2001), 238 NBR(2d) 112 (CA),238 N.B.R.(2d) 112,238 NBR(2d) 112,[2001] N.B.J. No 198 (QL),201 D.L.R. (4th) 75
• Date: 31 May 2001
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)

Ross v. Teachers Assoc. (2001), 238 N.B.R.(2d) 112 (CA);

    238 R.N.-B.(2e) 112; 617 A.P.R. 112

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2001] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JN.008

Josh Beutel (defendant/appellant/respondent by cross-appeal) v. Malcolm Ross (plaintiff/respondent/appellant by cross-appeal) and Canadian Newspaper Association, Association of Canadian Editorial Cartoonists, Canadian Jewish Congress, League for Human Rights of B'Nai Brith Canada and Canadian Civil Liberties Association (interveners)

(97/98/CA; 2001 NBCA 62)

Indexed As: Ross v. New Brunswick Teachers' Association et al.

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Daigle, C.J.N.B., Turnbull and Larlee, JJ.A.

May 31, 2001.

Summary:

Ross, a schoolteacher, viewed Judaism as an enemy of the traditional Christian faith. Ross published his views in several books and letters. Ross was removed from the classroom following a board of inquiry established under the New Brunswick Human Rights Act. Ross applied for judicial review. The Social Studies Council, operat­ing under the auspices of the New Bruns­wick Teachers' Association, organized a workshop on Jewish history focused on the Holocaust and anti-Semitism. The work­shop was held in a synagogue. Beutel, a cartoon­ist, was contacted to be a presenter by the Saint John Jewish Museum. The Social Studies Council also invited Beutel. Beutel made a presentation entitled "An Editorial Cartoonist Confronts Holocaust Issues". Beutel's presentation characterized Ross as an anti-Semite, a racist and a Nazi. Ross sued the New Brunswick Teachers' Associ­ation and Beutel for defamation. Beutel pleaded the defence of fair comment.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision reported 199 N.B.R.(2d) 245; 510 A.P.R. 245, found that Beutel defamed Ross by calling him a Nazi. The court awarded Ross damages of $7,500 against Beutel. The court dismissed the claim against the New Brunswick Teach­ers' Association but ordered it to pay Ross costs of $2,170. Beutel appealed. Ross cross-appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal.

Editors note: for related decisions see 224 N.B.R.(2d) 38; 574 A.P.R. 38; 174 N.B.R.(2d) 236; 444 A.P.R. 236; 164 N.B.R.(2d) 311; 421 A.P.R. 311; 156 N.B.R.(2d) 193; 401 A.P.R. 193.

Libel and Slander - Topic 651

The statement - What constitutes defam­atory statements - General principles - From cartoon - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 3109 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 2861

Defences - Justification or truth - General - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal noted the difference between a defence of fair comment and a defence of justification (i.e., truth) - See paragraph 50.

Libel and Slander - Topic 3101

Defences - Fair comment - General - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal reviewed the defence of "fair comment" in defama­tion cases - See paragraphs 45 to 86.

Libel and Slander - Topic 3107

Defences - Fair comment - Elements of fair comment - Honest expression of opin­ion - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 3109 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 3109

Defences - Fair comment - Elements of fair comment - Truth - Ross, a school­teacher, viewed Judaism as an enemy of the traditional Christian faith - Ross pub­lished his views in several books - Ross was removed from the classroom following a board of inquiry established under the New Brunswick Human Rights Act - The Social Studies Council, oper­ating under the auspices of the New Brunswick Teachers' Association, organ­ized a workshop on Jewish history - Beu­tel, a Jewish car­toonist, made a presenta­tion that Ross alleged characterized him as an anti-Semite, a racist and a Nazi - Ross sued Beutel for defamation - Beutel pleaded, inter alia, that the comments were true - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal re­jected the argument that the comments were true, however, the court allowed a fair comment defence where the comments were based on true facts made honestly without malice on a matter of public inter­est - See para­graphs 1 to 86.

Libel and Slander - Topic 3114

Defences - Fair comment - What consti­tutes - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 3101 and Libel and Slander - Topic 3109 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 4061

Malice - As a bar to defence of fair com­ment or qualified privilege - General - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal noted that the defence of fair comment could be defeated if a plaintiff showed that the comment was made with malice - "Malice focuses on the personal motives of the defamer. The defence is lost if he makes the comment because of some private spite or ill, or some other improper motive that belies the defence's intended purpose to permit comment on matters of public interest" - See paragraph 114.

Libel and Slander - Topic 5404

Evidence - General - Functions of judge and jury - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 6126 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 6126

Practice - Pleadings - Statement of claim - Setting out slanderous words - Ross, a schoolteacher, viewed Judaism as an enemy of the traditional Christian faith - Ross published his views in several books - Ross was removed from the classroom - The Social Studies Coun­cil of the New Brunswick Teachers' Asso­ciation organized a workshop on Jewish history - Beutel, a cartoonist, made a presentation that char­acterized Ross as, inter alia, a Nazi - Ross sued Beutel for five separate occasions of defamation - In determining the claim, the trail judge failed to address each alleged ground of defam­ation separately and de­termine whether in fact Ross had been defamed - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that this failure was an error - Pleading had to adequately define the nature of the action so it followed that the trial judge must rule in relation to each alleged defamation as if it were a separate cause of action - Not­withstanding, the court held that the error was not fatal because no substantial wrong affecting Ross resulted - See paragraphs 90 to 101.

Cases Noticed:

Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825; 195 N.R. 81; 171 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 437 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [paras. 5, 108].

Baxter v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. and Malling (1979), 28 N.B.R.(2d) 114; 63 A.P.R. 114 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 24].

Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd.; Lewis v. Associated Newspapers Ltd., [1964] A.C. 234 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 25].

Vander Zalm v. Times Publishers Ltd. et al. (1980), 109 D.L.R.(3d) 531 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 31].

Color Your World Corp. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. et al. (1998), 106 O.A.C. 279; 156 D.L.R.(4th) 27 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Fairfax & Sons v. Hook (1983), 47 A.L.R. 477, refd to. [para. 39].

Minister of National Revenue v. Schwartz, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 254; 193 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 44].

Effendi v. Beaulieu (1992), 125 N.B.R.(2d) 425; 316 A.P.R. 425 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Gallant v. Thibodeau (1998), 206 N.B.R.(2d) 336; 526 A.P.R. 336 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Brunswick Data Inc. v. New Brunswick, [2001] N.B.J. No. 181 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Jengle et al. v. Keetch et al. (1992), 54 O.A.C. 308; 7 O.R.(3d) 187 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Slim v. Daily Telegraph Ltd., [1968] 1 All E.R. 497 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Cherneskey v. Armdale Publishers Ltd. and King, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1067; 24 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. 49].

Sutherland v. Stopes, [1925] A.C. 47 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 50].

Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd. et al., [1999] 4 All E.R. 609; 250 N.R. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 52].

Hunt v. Star Newspaper Co., [1908] 2 K.B. 309 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

London Artists Ltd. v. Littler, [1969] 2 Q.B. 375 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

Barltrop v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (1978), 25 N.S.R.(2d) 637; 36 A.P.R. 637; 86 D.L.R.(3d) 61 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

Price v. Chicoutimi Pulp Co. (1915), 51 S.C.R. 179, refd to. [para. 69].

Kemsley v. Foot, [1952] 1 All E.R. 501 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 69].

Silkin v. Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd., [1958] 1 W.L.R. 743, refd to. [para. 76].

Irving v. Penguin Books Ltd., [2000] E.W.J. No. 1897, refd to. [para. 82].

Laufer v. Bucklaschuk (1999), 145 Man.R.(2d) 1; 218 W.A.C. 1; 181 D.L.R.(4th) 83 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 96].

Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al. (1991), 121 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 304 A.P.R. 1 (Bd. of Inquiry), refd to. [para. 108].

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. 114].

Horrocks v. Lowe, [1974] 1 All E.R. 662 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 115].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Raymond E., The Law of Defa­mation in Canada (2nd Ed.) (1999 Looseleaf), pp. 5-2 [para. 23]; 5-3 [paras. 23, 35]; 15-2 [para. 56]; 15-7, 15-8 [para. 53]; 15-14 [para. 57]; 15-14.1, 15-15 [para. 58]; 15-18.1 to 15-22 [para. 65]; 15-22, 15-23 [para. 69]; 16-16.4 to 16-16.17 [para. 116]; 19-20 [para. 95].

Duncan and Neill on Defamation (1978), pp. 1099, 1100 [para. 49].

Ross, Malcolm, Christianity vs. Judeo-Christianity (1987), generally [para. 5].

Ross, Malcolm, Spectre of Power (1987), generally [para. 5].

Ross, Malcolm, The Real Holocaust (1983), generally [para. 5].

Ross, Malcolm, Web of Deceit (1978), generally [para. 5].

Salmond and Heuston, The Law of Torts (17th Ed. 1977), pp. 139, 140 [para. 47].

Counsel:

David M. Lutz, Q.C., and Adrian Grat­wick, for the appellant;

Douglas H. Christie and John D. Hughes, for the respondent;

Paul Schabas, for the interveners, Canadian Newspaper Association and Association of Canadian Editorial Cartoonists;

Joel Richler, for the intervener, Canadian Jewish Congress;

Marvin Kurz, for the intervener, League for Human Rights of B'Nai Brith Can­ada;

Thomas S. Kuttner, for the intervener, Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

This appeal and cross-appeal were heard on January 20 and 21, 2000, before Daigle, C.J.N.B., Turnbull and Larlee, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. Daigle, C.J.N.B., delivered the following judgment on May 31, 2001.