McNichol v. Grandy

McNichol v. Grandy

There was sufficient evidence that the defendant's loud angry tone and raising of his voice could constitute fault or negligence making publication to a third person foreseeable; the factual issues of publication, negligence and malice were properly for the jury and the non‑suit was wrongly entered, so the Court of Appeal's order for a new trial was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Citation
[1931] SCR 696
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Andrew R. McNichol; Plaintiff/respondent: Delvina Grandy
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 October 1931
Procedural Posture
Slander (defamation); Torts / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Manitoba; Trial Non Suit Set Aside; Remitted for New Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Manitoba affirmed; case remitted for a new trial
Legal Topics
Slander, Publication, Negligence, Onus of Proof, Qualified Privilege
Source Language
English
Torts Defamation Civil Procedure Slander Publication Negligence Onus of Proof Qualified Privilege

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

Andrew R. McNichol

Defendant/appellant

Delvina Grandy

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Slander (defamation); Torts / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Manitoba; Trial Non Suit Set Aside; Remitted for New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether publication occurred when defendant's alleged slander was overheard by a third person unknown to the defendant
  2. 2 Whether a defendant is liable for an accidental/unintentional publication absent fault or negligence
  3. 3 Where the burden of proof lies once communication to a third person is established

Ratio Decidendi

There was sufficient evidence that the defendant's loud angry tone and raising of his voice could constitute fault or negligence making publication to a third person foreseeable; the factual issues of publication, negligence and malice were properly for the jury and the non‑suit was wrongly entered, so the Court of Appeal's order for a new trial was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Manitoba affirmed; case remitted for a new trial

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Order for new trial; matter remitted to trial court