O'Connor v. Waldron

O'Connor v. Waldron

Because the pleaded facts and admissions showed the impugned words were spoken by the defendant in the course of a statutory inquiry he conducted as a commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act and the Enquiries Act, those statements were absolutely privileged and the action disclosed no cause of action, warranting dismissal on motion.

Citation
[1932] SCR 183
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: William Francis O'Connor; Defendant/respondent: Gordon Waldron
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 December 1931
Procedural Posture
Defamation (tort) Arising From Statutory Inquiry / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division of Ontario; Underlying Action Dismissed on Defendant's Motion in Weekly Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Appellate Division affirming dismissal of the action on motion upheld.
Legal Topics
Absolute Privilege, Quasi Judicial/statutory Inquiries, Commissioner Powers, Summary Dismissal on Question of Law
Source Language
English
Torts Defamation Administrative Law Procedural Law Absolute Privilege Quasi Judicial/statutory Inquiries Commissioner Powers Summary Dismissal on Question of Law

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Francis O'Connor

Plaintiff/appellant

Gordon Waldron

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Defamation (tort) Arising From Statutory Inquiry / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division of Ontario; Underlying Action Dismissed on Defendant's Motion in Weekly Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements made by the defendant while conducting a statutory inquiry as commissioner are protected by absolute privilege
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings and admissions left any material issues of fact such that summary disposal on motion was improper
  3. 3 Whether inquiries under the Combines Investigation Act and Enquiries Act are quasi-judicial in character

Ratio Decidendi

Because the pleaded facts and admissions showed the impugned words were spoken by the defendant in the course of a statutory inquiry he conducted as a commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act and the Enquiries Act, those statements were absolutely privileged and the action disclosed no cause of action, warranting dismissal on motion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Appellate Division affirming dismissal of the action on motion upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Action dismissed for failure to disclose reasonable cause of action due to absolute privilege