Jones v. Bennett

Jones v. Bennett

The words were defamatory in their ordinary meaning; the defence of qualified privilege failed because any privilege that might have attached was lost when the defendant must have known reporters were present and the remarks would be published to the public; the defence of fair comment failed because the sting of the words was not comment but an imputation, and therefore the trial judgment awarding damages should be restored.

Citation
[1969] SCR 277
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: George Ernest Pascoe Jones; Defendant/respondent: William Andrew Cecil Bennett
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 December 1968
Procedural Posture
Slander/defamation (tort) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Fair Comment, Publication to the Public, Damages
Source Language
English
Torts Defamation Media Law Qualified Privilege Fair Comment Publication to the Public Damages

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Ernest Pascoe Jones

Plaintiff/appellant

William Andrew Cecil Bennett

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Slander/defamation (tort) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Were the words defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning?
  2. 2 Did qualified privilege protect the defendant?s statements at a political party meeting?
  3. 3 Was any privilege lost by publication to the general public (presence of reporters)?

Ratio Decidendi

The words were defamatory in their ordinary meaning; the defence of qualified privilege failed because any privilege that might have attached was lost when the defendant must have known reporters were present and the remarks would be published to the public; the defence of fair comment failed because the sting of the words was not comment but an imputation, and therefore the trial judgment awarding damages should be restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored.

Orders

  • Restore judgment of Ruttan J. awarding $15,000 damages to the plaintiff
  • Costs to the appellant in this Court and in the Court of Appeal