Sentinel-Review Co., Ltd. v. Robinson et al.

Sentinel-Review Co., Ltd. v. Robinson et al.

The notice under s.8 of the Libel and Slander Act is a condition precedent within C.R.146 and defendants waived the right to dispute its sufficiency by failing to plead non-performance; on the facts the notice sufficiently identified the plaintiff despite being signed "The Woodstock Sentinel-Review," and the jury’s damages award was not excessive, so the Appellate Division’s dismissal was reversed and the trial judgment restored.

Citation
[1928] SCR 258
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Sentinel-Review Co., Ltd.; Defendant/respondent: John R. Robinson; J.E. Cameron; Irving E. Robertson; Douglas S. Robertson; Alfred T. Chadwick (Trustees and Proprietors of The Evening Telegram)
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 April 1928
Procedural Posture
Tort — Libel (defamation) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored; Appellate Division decision reversed.
Legal Topics
Libel, Notice Before Action, Condition Precedent, Sufficiency of Notice, Pleading Requirements, Excessive Damages / New Trial
Source Language
English
Torts Defamation Civil Procedure Pleading Statutory Interpretation Libel Notice Before Action Condition Precedent +3 more

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sentinel-Review Co., Ltd.

Plaintiff/appellant

John R. Robinson; J.E. Cameron; Irving E. Robertson; Douglas S. Robertson; Alfred T. Chadwick (Trustees and Proprietors of The Evening Telegram)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort — Libel (defamation) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statutory notice under s.8 of the Libel and Slander Act is a condition precedent within the meaning of Ontario C.R. 146
  2. 2 Whether the notice served identified the intending plaintiff with reasonable certainty and was therefore sufficient
  3. 3 Whether defendants waived the right to contest sufficiency of notice by failing to plead it under C.R. 146

Ratio Decidendi

The notice under s.8 of the Libel and Slander Act is a condition precedent within C.R.146 and defendants waived the right to dispute its sufficiency by failing to plead non-performance; on the facts the notice sufficiently identified the plaintiff despite being signed "The Woodstock Sentinel-Review," and the jury’s damages award was not excessive, so the Appellate Division’s dismissal was reversed and the trial judgment restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored; Appellate Division decision reversed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of the trial judge restored (plaintiff’s verdict and $6,000 damages reinstated)