Mudford v. Smith

Mudford v. Smith

The Court upheld the trial judge's findings that he correctly applied the substantial truth test, that the impugned statements were defamatory and not substantially true, and that fair comment failed because the underlying facts were untrue; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
2010 ONCA 395
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Carey Mudford; Plaintiff (respondent): 1555433 Ontario Inc. carrying on business as "Carey Mudford Interior Design"; Defendant (appellant): Peter Smith
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil (defamation Libel) / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice Judgment Dated October 16, 2009
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Belobaba J. upheld; appellant liable for libel.
Legal Topics
Libel, Substantial Truth, Fair Comment, Costs
Source Language
English
Defamation Civil Litigation Libel Substantial Truth Fair Comment Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carey Mudford

Plaintiff (respondent)

1555433 Ontario Inc. carrying on business as "Carey Mudford Interior Design"

Plaintiff (respondent)

Peter Smith

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil (defamation Libel) / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice Judgment Dated October 16, 2009

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge applied the correct "substantially true" test or an impermissibly strict "completely true" test
  2. 2 Whether the defence of fair comment applies to the statement "This designer in my view has no integrity"
  3. 3 Entitlement to costs of the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld the trial judge's findings that he correctly applied the substantial truth test, that the impugned statements were defamatory and not substantially true, and that fair comment failed because the underlying facts were untrue; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Belobaba J. upheld; appellant liable for libel.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Respondents entitled to their costs of the appeal fixed at $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.