Arnott v. College of Physicians

Arnott v. College of Physicians

The College's report was published on an occasion of qualified privilege because it was a statutory, quasi‑public body discharging a duty to inform members and the public about a medical treatment it judged without merit; the College acted honestly and in good faith and the jury found absence of malice; accordingly the privilege protects the publication and the appellant cannot recover, with additional holdings that the appellant was not established as identified to recipients and that the language used did not exceed the duty so as to negate privilege absent malice.

Citation
[1954] SCR 538
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: David H. Arnott; Defendant/respondent: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of The Province of Saskatchewan
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 October 1954
Procedural Posture
Libel (defamation) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal ordering dismissal of the action restored.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Publication and Identification (innuendo), Malice, Trade Libel, Duty to Public Safety
Source Language
English
Torts Defamation Administrative/regulatory Law Qualified Privilege Publication and Identification (innuendo) Malice Trade Libel Duty to Public Safety

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David H. Arnott

Plaintiff/appellant

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of The Province of Saskatchewan

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Libel (defamation) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the publication made on a privileged occasion?
  2. 2 Was the plaintiff identified by the words or innuendo so as to be defamed?
  3. 3 Was publication proven to persons who understood it to refer to the plaintiff?

Ratio Decidendi

The College's report was published on an occasion of qualified privilege because it was a statutory, quasi‑public body discharging a duty to inform members and the public about a medical treatment it judged without merit; the College acted honestly and in good faith and the jury found absence of malice; accordingly the privilege protects the publication and the appellant cannot recover, with additional holdings that the appellant was not established as identified to recipients and that the language used did not exceed the duty so as to negate privilege absent malice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal ordering dismissal of the action restored.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs