Leenen v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

Leenen v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the broadcast, by selective editing and presentation, conveyed defamatory innuendoes about Dr. Leenen; the defendants failed to establish justification, qualified privilege and fair comment; some findings of malice were reduced where unsupported, but the liability and awards for general, aggravated and punitive damages and the solicitor-and-client costs award were not disturbed; appeal dismissed with costs.

Citation
C34272
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Frans H.H. Leenen; Defendants (appellants): Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; Trish Wood; Nicholas Regush; Paul Webster; David Studer; Garry Akenhead
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Defamation (civil) / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Trial Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; leave to appeal costs granted but costs appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Defamation Liability, Justification/truth, Qualified Privilege, Fair Comment, Aggravated Damages, Punitive Damages, Malice, Solicitor and Client Costs
Source Language
English
Defamation Media Law Damages Costs Defamation Liability Justification/truth Qualified Privilege Fair Comment +4 more

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frans H.H. Leenen

Plaintiff (respondent)

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; Trish Wood; Nicholas Regush; Paul Webster; David Studer; Garry Akenhead

Defendants (appellants)

Procedural Posture

Defamation (civil) / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the broadcast was defamatory by overall impression and editing
  2. 2 Whether the defendants established justification (truth)
  3. 3 Whether qualified privilege applied

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the broadcast, by selective editing and presentation, conveyed defamatory innuendoes about Dr. Leenen; the defendants failed to establish justification, qualified privilege and fair comment; some findings of malice were reduced where unsupported, but the liability and awards for general, aggravated and punitive damages and the solicitor-and-client costs award were not disturbed; appeal dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; leave to appeal costs granted but costs appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Trial judgment upheld: liability for defamation confirmed