Lacarte v. Toronto Board of Education

Lacarte v. Toronto Board of Education

Majority: The dismissal letter was issued pursuant to the statutory duty to give written reasons and its circulation in the ordinary course of the Board's business was an occasion of qualified privilege; there was no evidence of actual malice to submit to a jury, so the privilege was not defeated and the action for libel must be dismissed.

Citation
[1959] SCR 465
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Meriza Lacarte; Respondent/defendant: Board of Education of Toronto
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 March 1959
Procedural Posture
Libel (defamation) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (Rand and Cartwright JJ. dissenting)
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Malice, Publication, Statutory Duty to Give Reasons, Imputation of Servant's Malice to Corporation
Source Language
English
Torts Defamation Employment Law Education Law Administrative Law Qualified Privilege Malice Publication +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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Meriza Lacarte

Appellant/plaintiff

Board of Education of Toronto

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal letter was published on an occasion of qualified privilege
  2. 2 Whether there was evidence of malice sufficient to defeat qualified privilege
  3. 3 Whether malice of an employee supplying information can be imputed to the corporation

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: The dismissal letter was issued pursuant to the statutory duty to give written reasons and its circulation in the ordinary course of the Board's business was an occasion of qualified privilege; there was no evidence of actual malice to submit to a jury, so the privilege was not defeated and the action for libel must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (Rand and Cartwright JJ. dissenting)

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs to respondent if demanded