Watson and Gallagher v. Southam Inc. et al., (2000) 134 O.A.C. 139 (CA)

• Judge: Abella, Goudge and MacPherson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: April 03, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2000), 134 O.A.C. 139 (CA)

Watson v. Southam Inc. (2000), 134 O.A.C. 139 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] O.A.C. TBEd. JL.008

George Watson and John Gallagher (plaintiffs/respondents) v. Southam Inc., carrying on business as the publisher and proprietor of the Hamilton Spectator, Ken Peters, Adrian Humphreys, Jim Poling, John G. Doherty, James Halliday, David Wilson, Reg Whynott, Larry Wolfe, David Dunston, Jennifer Roberts, Anne Marie Berryman and Diane Kozlovic-Mros and the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth (defendants/appellants)

(C29196)

Indexed As: Watson and Gallagher v. Southam Inc. et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Abella, Goudge and MacPherson, JJ.A.

July 7, 2000.

Summary:

Three visitors, a city councillor, a former councillor and a former staff member at­tended at a water treatment plant and de­manded to see the filter building. The visi­tors were denied entry, but went into the filter building anyway. Following the inci­dent, statements were made about the inci­dent by several parties which were published in a newspaper. The plaintiffs, two of the visitors, sued the defendants for damages for defamation.

The Ontario Court (General Division), in a decision reported 52 O.T.C. 1, found the defendant municipal employees Halliday, Wilson and Roberts liable for defamation and the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth vicariously liable for the defama­tion. The court assessed damages accord­ingly. The Regional Municipality and the three employees et al. appealed. The plain­tiffs cross-appealed seeking increased dam­ages.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the Regional Municipality's appeal and set aside the order against it. The court dismissed the employees' appeal and the plaintiffs' cross-appeal.

Damage Awards - Topic 632

Torts - Injury to the person - Libel and slander - Three visitors, a city councillor, a former councillor and a former staff member attended at a water treatment plant and demanded to see the filter building - The visitors were denied entry, but went into the filter building anyway - Following the incident, statements were made about the incident by several parties which were published in a newspaper - The plaintiffs, two of the visitors, sued the municipality, and three employees et al. for damages for defamation - The trial judge allowed the action and assessed damages against the municipal employees of $25,000, $12,000 and $12,000 - The Ontario Court of Ap­peal affirmed the award - See paragraphs 1 to 42.

Libel and Slander - Topic 642

The statement - What constitutes defama­tory statements - Examples of defamatory words - Three visitors, a city councillor, a former councillor and a former staff mem­ber attended at a water treatment plant and demanded to see the filter building - The visitors were denied entry, but went into the filter building anyway - Following the incident, statements were made about the incident by several parties which were published in a newspaper - The plaintiffs, two of the visitors, sued the municipality, and three employees et al. for damages for defamation - The trial judge allowed the action - The Ontario Court of Appeal set aside the finding of liability with respect to the municipality, but otherwise affirmed the decision - See paragraphs 1 to 41.

Libel and Slander - Topic 6061

Practice - Notice - General - Two plaintiffs sued a municipality and its employees for damages for defamation - The municipality alleged that the claim against it was barred because the plaintiffs failed to comply with the notice provisions in s. 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act - The plaintiffs argued that the s. 5(1) requirement to give notice did not apply to non-publisher or non-media defendants - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that s. 5(1) applied to all defendants - Even a potentially vicariously liable defendant such as the municipality was entitled to notice - No notice was given - Since failure to provide notice in a timely manner was an absolute bar, the claim against the municipality should be dismissed - See paragraphs 43 to 62.

Cases Noticed:

Stuarts Furniture & Appliances v. No Frills Appliances & Television Ltd. (1982), 40 O.R.(2d) 52 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 50].

Elliott v. Freisen et al. (1982), 37 O.R.(2d) 409, affd. (1984), 1 O.A.C. 376; 45 O.R.(2d) 285 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Greenpeace Foundation of Canada v. Tor­onto Sun Publishing Corp. (1989), 69 O.R.(2d) 427 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 50].

Merling v. Southam Inc. et al. (2000), 128 O.A.C. 261 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Misir v. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. et al. (1997), 105 O.A.C. 270 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Grossman v. CFTO-TV Ltd. (1982), 39 O.R.(2d) 498 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1983), 46 N.R. 266 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 50].

Frisina v. Southam Press Ltd. (1980), 30 O.R.(2d) 65 (H.C.), affd. (1981), 33 O.R.(2d) 287 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Knowles v. 20th Century Publishing Co., [1939] O.W.N. 403 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 51].

Statutes Noticed:

Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L-12, sect. 5(1), sect. 5(6) [para. 44].

Counsel:

Gary Kuzyk and David A. Potts, for the appellant, Southam Inc.;

W. Graydon Sheppard, for the appellants;

John W. Findlay, for the respondent, Wat­son;

Shane Watson, for the respondent, Gal­lagher.

This appeal was heard on April 3, 2000, by Abella, Goudge and MacPherson, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The fol­lowing decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Abella, J.A., on July 7, 2000.