Dewe v. Waterbury

Dewe v. Waterbury

Defendant was a public officer acting within the scope of his departmental authority and under instructions; the statements to the assistant postmaster were made on a privileged occasion and there was no evidence of actual malice; therefore the burden to prove malice lay on the plaintiff and, absent such proof, the plaintiff was not entitled to retain the verdict and a non-suit/ verdict for defendant should be entered.

Citation
(1881) 6 SCR 143
Parties
Appellant (chief Post Office Inspector): John Dewe; Respondent (post Office Clerk): David H. Waterbury
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 February 1881
Procedural Posture
Slander (defamation) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of New Brunswick
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of court below reversed in part; rule for non-suit made absolute and judgment for defendant on demurrer entered.
Legal Topics
Privileged Communication, Malice, Publication, Appointment by Order in Council, Non Suit and Jury Direction
Source Language
English
Defamation Administrative Law Public Officer Duties Procedural Law Privileged Communication Malice Publication Appointment by Order in Council +1 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Dewe

Appellant (chief Post Office Inspector)

David H. Waterbury

Respondent (post Office Clerk)

Procedural Posture

Slander (defamation) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of New Brunswick

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was a validly authorized public officer when making the statements
  2. 2 Whether the statements to the assistant postmaster were privileged communications made in the course of duty
  3. 3 Who bears the burden of proof to show malice when privilege applies

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant was a public officer acting within the scope of his departmental authority and under instructions; the statements to the assistant postmaster were made on a privileged occasion and there was no evidence of actual malice; therefore the burden to prove malice lay on the plaintiff and, absent such proof, the plaintiff was not entitled to retain the verdict and a non-suit/ verdict for defendant should be entered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of court below reversed in part; rule for non-suit made absolute and judgment for defendant on demurrer entered.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Rule nisi for non-suit discharged in lower court set aside and non-suit entered (verdict for defendant)