Foulidis v. Ford

Foulidis v. Ford

Appeal dismissed because the trial judge’s findings that the impugned remarks referred to the Tuggs entity and the municipal Council process rather than to the appellant personally, and that the remarks were non‑defamatory (they expressed suspicion but expressly disavowed accusation), were open to the trial judge...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2014 ONCA 530
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: George Foulidis; Defendant/respondent: Robert Ford
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Superior Court of Justice
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; trial judgment dismissing the libel action upheld.
Legal Topics
Libel, Defamatory Meaning, Reference to Plaintiff, Qualified Privilege, Fair Comment, Responsible Communication, Costs Award, Standard of Appellate Review
Source Language
english
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Costs Libel Defamatory Meaning Reference to Plaintiff Qualified Privilege +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Foulidis

Plaintiff/appellant

Robert Ford

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Superior Court of Justice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the impugned words referred to the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the impugned words were defamatory
  3. 3 Whether any defences (qualified privilege, fair comment, responsible communication) applied

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed because the trial judge’s findings that the impugned remarks referred to the Tuggs entity and the municipal Council process rather than to the appellant personally, and that the remarks were non‑defamatory (they expressed suspicion but expressly disavowed accusation), were open to the trial judge and entitled to appellate deference; therefore the dismissal of the libel action was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; trial judgment dismissing the libel action upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Respondents entitled to costs of the appeal fixed at $27,651 for Mr. Ford and Mr. Baker jointly