Gaskin v. Retail Credit Co. et al

Gaskin v. Retail Credit Co. et al

Where there is any evidence from which it can reasonably be inferred that a defamatory statement was made known to a third party, the question of whether the plaintiff has discharged the burden of proving publication is a matter for the jury; evidence that credit reports were prepared and 'sent' to clients was sufficient to go to the jury and therefore the nonsuit was improperly granted, warranting allowance of the appeal and a new trial.

Citation
[1965] SCR 297
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Victor M. Gaskin; Respondent (defendant): Retail Credit Co.; Respondent (defendant): John Herbert; Respondent (defendant): T.J. Kelly
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 March 1965
Procedural Posture
Libel (defamation) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; new trial directed; costs awarded to appellant; respondent to pay costs of first trial
Legal Topics
Publication, Burden of Proof, Nonsuit, Jury Determination, Credit Reports
Source Language
English
Torts Defamation Publication Burden of Proof Nonsuit Jury Determination Credit Reports

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victor M. Gaskin

Appellant (plaintiff)

Retail Credit Co.

Respondent (defendant)

John Herbert

Respondent (defendant)

T.J. Kelly

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Libel (defamation) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff discharged burden of proving publication of alleged libel
  2. 2 Whether evidence that credit reports were prepared and sent suffices to go to the jury
  3. 3 Whether authorities create a closed list of circumstances from which publication may be inferred

Ratio Decidendi

Where there is any evidence from which it can reasonably be inferred that a defamatory statement was made known to a third party, the question of whether the plaintiff has discharged the burden of proving publication is a matter for the jury; evidence that credit reports were prepared and 'sent' to clients was sufficient to go to the jury and therefore the nonsuit was improperly granted, warranting allowance of the appeal and a new trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; new trial directed; costs awarded to appellant; respondent to pay costs of first trial

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • New trial directed