Trial by Jury

• Author: Roger McConchie; David Potts
• Profession: Member of the Bars of British Columbia and Alberta/Member of the Bar of Ontario
• Pages: 227-231

Trial

by

Jury

A.

INTRODUCTION

Statutes

or

court rules

in

certain provinces give

a

defamation litigant either

an

absolute

or a

qualified right

to

demand

a

jury trial.

Alberta,

Jury

Act,

R.S.A.

2000,

c.

J-3,1

s.!7(l).

British

Columbia,

Supreme

Court

Rules,

r.

39(24),

(26), (27).

Newfoundland

and

Labrador, Jury Act, S.N.

1991,

c. 16,

s.32(l)

as

amended

byS.N.

1999,

c. 13.

Nova

Scotia,

Judicature

Act,

R.S.N.S.

1989,

c.

240, s.34.

Ontario,

Courts

ojJustice

Act,

R.S.O.

1900, c.43,

s.108

(2).

Saskatchewan,

Jury

Act,

R.S.S.

1981,

c.

J.-4.1,

s.16.

In

Mitchell

v.

Nanimo

District

Teachers

Association

(1994),

94

B.C.L.R.

(2d)

81

(C.A.),

the

majority judgment

of the

British Columbia Court

of

Appeal

suggested that

the

question whether

a

publication defamed

the

plaintiff

is

best decided

by a

jury:

Upon

an

issue "libel

or no

libel'

[that

is, the

question

of

fact

to be

answered]

eight opinions

are

better than one.

Had it

been,

the

jury could have returned

a

verdict

for

either

plaintiff

or

defendants without being deserving

of the

epi-

thet

'unreasonable.'

The

importance

of a

jury

in

civil libel cases

is

discussed

in

Rothermere

v.

Times

Newspapers,

[1973]

1

WL.R.

448,

where Lord Denning M.R. stated

at

page

452

that

the

right

to a

jury trial

"is of the

highest importance, especial-

ly

when

the

defendant

has

ventured

to

criticise

the

government

of the

day,

or

those

who

hold authority

or

power

in the

state."

Writing

one of the

major-

227

c

ii

A p

i i

R

r\v

i:

i

v

i

: