Dingle v. World Newspaper Co. of Toronto

Dingle v. World Newspaper Co. of Toronto

Because the record contained no proof or admissive pleading that the newspaper complied with s.15(1), compliance could not be presumed for the purposes of the defendant's motion; the plaintiff's failure to allege non‑compliance in the reply did not constitute an admission under Ontario practice; and the Supreme Court on a case stated may not supplement the record with evidence — therefore the dismissal for want of notice could not be sustained and the appeal must be allowed.

Citation
(1918) 57 SCR 573
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Louis Dingle; Defendant/respondent: The World Newspaper Company of Toronto
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 December 1918
Procedural Posture
Libel Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (case Stated Under Supreme Court Act S.73)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of Appellate Division set aside.
Legal Topics
Notice Requirement Under Libel Statute, Pleading and Admissions, Proof and Evidence on Motion, Publication Identification Requirement (proprietor/publisher Name)
Source Language
English
Defamation Civil Procedure Statutory Interpretation Notice Requirement Under Libel Statute Pleading and Admissions Proof and Evidence on Motion Publication Identification Requirement (proprietor/publisher Name)

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louis Dingle

Plaintiff/appellant

The World Newspaper Company of Toronto

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Libel Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (case Stated Under Supreme Court Act S.73)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of the notice on the city editor satisfied s.8(1) of the Libel and Slander Act
  2. 2 Whether a defendant may rely on want of notice under s.8 where s.15(1) requires the proprietor/publisher name to be set out in the paper
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's failure to plead non‑compliance with s.15(1) in the reply amounts to an admission

Ratio Decidendi

Because the record contained no proof or admissive pleading that the newspaper complied with s.15(1), compliance could not be presumed for the purposes of the defendant's motion; the plaintiff's failure to allege non‑compliance in the reply did not constitute an admission under Ontario practice; and the Supreme Court on a case stated may not supplement the record with evidence — therefore the dismissal for want of notice could not be sustained and the appeal must be allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of Appellate Division set aside.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment dismissing the action set aside