N R Developments Ltd. v. Thomas

N R Developments Ltd. v. Thomas

Court found parts of the publications defamatory but allowed defendant's justification defence for the Explorer article and campaign literature as used there; found Beautiful British Columbia article statements (unmodified use of 'floodplain' and 'soggy' and certain misstatements) were untrue or created a false impression and were neither justified nor protected as fair comment; particle-board and 'neophyte developer' imputations were untrue; injurious falsehood not proved because malice was not established; counterclaim for abuse of process dismissed; damages to plaintiffs to be assessed later and costs reserved.

Citation
2002 BCSC 697
Parties
Plaintiff: N R Developments Ltd.; Plaintiff: William Robert Ing; Defendant: David Thomas
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Defamation and Injurious Falsehood With Counterclaim for Abuse of Process / Application Under Rule 18 A; Liability Determined; Assessment of Damages Reserved; Costs Reserved
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiffs on defamation in part; defendant's justification/fair comment defences succeed as to some publications but fail as to Beautiful British Columbia article and certain specific false statements; claim for injurious falsehood dismissed; counterclaim for abuse of process dismissed; damages to be...
Legal Topics
Libel, Justification (truth), Fair Comment, Malice, Summary Dismissal (rule 18 A), Assessment of Damages
Source Language
English
Defamation Law Tort of Injurious Falsehood Abuse of Process Civil Procedure Damages Libel Justification (truth) Fair Comment +3 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N R Developments Ltd.

Plaintiff

William Robert Ing

Plaintiff

David Thomas

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Defamation and Injurious Falsehood With Counterclaim for Abuse of Process / Application Under Rule 18 A; Liability Determined; Assessment of Damages Reserved; Costs Reserved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether publications were defamatory
  2. 2 Whether defendant can rely on justification (truth) defence
  3. 3 Whether defendant can rely on fair comment defence

Ratio Decidendi

Court found parts of the publications defamatory but allowed defendant's justification defence for the Explorer article and campaign literature as used there; found Beautiful British Columbia article statements (unmodified use of 'floodplain' and 'soggy' and certain misstatements) were untrue or created a false impression and were neither justified nor protected as fair comment; particle-board and 'neophyte developer' imputations were untrue; injurious falsehood not proved because malice was not established; counterclaim for abuse of process dismissed; damages to plaintiffs to be assessed later and costs reserved.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiffs on defamation in part; defendant's justification/fair comment defences succeed as to some publications but fail as to Beautiful British Columbia article and certain specific false statements; claim for injurious falsehood dismissed; counterclaim for abuse of process dismissed; damages to be...

Orders

  • Judgment that defendant David Thomas defamed the plaintiffs to the extent set out in reasons for judgment
  • Plaintiffs' claim for injurious falsehood dismissed