Ross v. Lamport

Ross v. Lamport

Appeal allowed and new trial ordered limited to reassessment of damages because the jury's findings that the words were published, referred to the plaintiff in his calling, were defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning and were published with malice stand; 'trafficking in licences' was actionable in relation to the plaintiff's calling without proof of special damage; if plaintiff elects to rely only on the natural and ordinary meaning damages to be reassessed accordingly, otherwise the presiding judge at retrial will decide which innuendoes the words are reasonably capable of and the jury will assess damages for those found capable.

Citation
[1956] SCR 366
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Thomas Ross; Respondent/defendant: Allan Lamport
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 March 1956
Procedural Posture
Tort – Defamation (libel and Slander) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; new trial ordered limited to reassessment of damages; findings on liability and natural and ordinary defamatory meaning to stand
Legal Topics
Libel, Slander, Qualified Privilege, Innuendo, Malice, Damages, Actionable Per Se (relating to Calling)
Source Language
English
Torts Defamation Administrative Law Libel Slander Qualified Privilege Innuendo Malice +2 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Ross

Appellant/plaintiff

Allan Lamport

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Tort – Defamation (libel and Slander) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether all pleaded innuendos were properly left to the jury
  2. 2 Whether the words complained of were in relation to the plaintiff's calling and actionable without proof of special damage
  3. 3 Whether the trial counsel's address was inflammatory

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal allowed and new trial ordered limited to reassessment of damages because the jury's findings that the words were published, referred to the plaintiff in his calling, were defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning and were published with malice stand; 'trafficking in licences' was actionable in relation to the plaintiff's calling without proof of special damage; if plaintiff elects to rely only on the natural and ordinary meaning damages to be reassessed accordingly, otherwise the presiding judge at retrial will decide which innuendoes the words are reasonably capable of and the jury will assess damages for those found capable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; new trial ordered limited to reassessment of damages; findings on liability and natural and ordinary defamatory meaning to stand

Orders

  • New trial limited to assessment of damages only
  • Appellant may elect to have damages assessed solely on the basis that the words were defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning