Sanjh Savera Weekly v. Ajit Newspaper Advertising
The appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to demonstrate that the trial judge erred: the excluded 1996 article would not have affected the outcome, the Notice to Admit material was before and considered by the trial judge, contempt evidence was not used improperly in the merits determination, and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2008 ONCA 145
- Parties
- Plaintiff (respondent): Sanjh Savera Weekly; Plaintiff (respondent): Hansra Enterprises Inc.; Plaintiff (respondent): Sukhminder Singh Hansra; Defendant (appellant): Ajit Newspaper Advertising, Marketing and Communication Inc.; Defendant (appellant): Ajit Weekly Newspaper; Defendant (appellant): Darshan Kaur; Defendant (appellant): Darshan Singh; Defendant (appellant): Kanwaljit Kau; Defendant (appellant): Kanwal Sandeep Singh; Defendant (appellant): Kanwar Navdeep Singh; Defendant (appellant): Vinny Bains
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 29 February 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Defamation / Appeal Judgment (court of Appeal for Ontario)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Notice to Admit, Contempt Evidence, Punitive Damages, Reputation
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Sanjh Savera Weekly
Plaintiff (respondent)
Hansra Enterprises Inc.
Plaintiff (respondent)
Sukhminder Singh Hansra
Plaintiff (respondent)
Ajit Newspaper Advertising, Marketing and Communication Inc.
Defendant (appellant)
Ajit Weekly Newspaper
Defendant (appellant)
Darshan Kaur
Defendant (appellant)
Darshan Singh
Defendant (appellant)
Kanwaljit Kau
Defendant (appellant)
Kanwal Sandeep Singh
Defendant (appellant)
Kanwar Navdeep Singh
Defendant (appellant)
Vinny Bains
Defendant (appellant)
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation / Appeal Judgment (court of Appeal for Ontario)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a 1996 newspaper article was admissible as evidence of reputation at the time of the 2002 defamation
- 2 Whether admissions in a Notice to Admit were considered by the trial judge despite not being cited in reasons
- 3 Whether contempt evidence was improperly used in determining the merits
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to demonstrate that the trial judge erred: the excluded 1996 article would not have affected the outcome, the Notice to Admit material was before and considered by the trial judge, contempt evidence was not used improperly in the merits determination, and the punitive damages award was appropriate given the malicious and outrageous nature of the defamation and the need for punishment and deterrence.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs to the respondents fixed at $6,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Sanjh Savera Weekly v. Ajit Newspaper Advertising Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2008-02-29 Neutral citation 2008 ONCA 145 Docket numbers C45698 Judges Lang, Susan Elizabeth; MacFarland, Jean Louise; LaForme, Harry Smith Subject Civil Decision Content CITATION: Sanjh Savera Weekly v. Ajit Newspaper Advertising, 2008 ONCA 145 DATE: 20080228 DOCKET: C45698 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO LANG, MACFARLAND and LAFORME JJ.A. BETWEEN: SANJH SAVERA WEEKLY, HANSRA ENTERPRISES INC. and SUKHMINDER SINGH HANSRA Plaintiffs (Respondent) and AJIT NEWSPAPER ADVERTISING, MARKETING AND COMMUNICATION INC., AJIT WEEKLY NEWSPAPER, DARSHAN KAUR, DARSHAN SINGH, KANWALJIT KAU, KANWAL SANDEEP SINGH, KANWAR NAVDEEP SINGH and VINNY BAINS Defendants (Appellants) Bobby H. Sachdeva and David Contant for the appellants Sidney Klotz for the respondent Heard: February 26, 2008 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Spence of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 20, 2007. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellants raise four grounds of appeal. [2] On the first ground, the appellants have failed to persuade us that the trial judge erred in refusing to admit a 1996 newspaper article as evidence of the respondent’s reputation at the time of the 2002 defamation. Even if the article should have been admitted, and apart from the fact that the article did not go to the sting of the defamation, it would not have affected the outcome because the respondent’s views were before the court. The trial judge told the appellants they could ask questions about the respondent’s views on Khalistan and the assassination of Indira Ghandi and those questions were asked and answered without objection. [3] On the second ground, regarding the notice to admit, the admissions relied on by the appellants were before the trial judge. Full and detailed written submissions were presented to the trial judge – simply because the trial judge did not specifically refer to the Notice to Admit in his reasons does not mean that he did not consider that evidence. [4] On the third ground, the appellants fairly conceded in argument that they could not point to any manner in which the trial judge used the contempt evidence in his determination of the merits of the case. We see no error in the procedure followed by the trial judge. [5] Finally, on the fourth ground, it is clear from his reasons that the trial judge was alive to the proper test for punitive damages. In our view, it is implicit in the trial judge’s reasons, read as a whole, that he concluded that the malicious publication offended the court’s sense of decency. Given the particulars of the defamation, and the outrageous nature of certain aspects of the defamation, it is clear that the punitive damages were intended to have a deterrent effect and to punish the appellants. [6] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondents fixed in the amount of $6,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.