Banks v. the Globe and Mail Ltd. et al.

Banks v. the Globe and Mail Ltd. et al.

The Court held the editorial was not published on an occasion of qualified privilege; proof that a subject is of wide public interest does not alone create qualified privilege for a newspaper publishing to the public at large; consequently the defendants failed on their qualified privilege plea and judgment for plaintiff for assessed damages was proper.

Citation
[1961] SCR 474
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Harold C. Banks; Defendant/respondent: The Globe and Mail Limited; Defendant/respondent: Oakley Dalgleish
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 April 1961
Procedural Posture
Libel (defamation) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgments of the Court of Appeal and trial judge set aside; judgment entered for plaintiff
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Fair Comment, Malice, Libel, Publication on Matter of Public Interest
Source Language
English
Torts Defamation Media Law Qualified Privilege Fair Comment Malice Libel Publication on Matter of Public Interest

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harold C. Banks

Plaintiff/appellant

The Globe and Mail Limited

Defendant/respondent

Oakley Dalgleish

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the publication was made on an occasion of qualified privilege
  2. 2 Whether the defence of fair comment applied to the editorial
  3. 3 Whether evidence of malice negated any qualified privilege

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the editorial was not published on an occasion of qualified privilege; proof that a subject is of wide public interest does not alone create qualified privilege for a newspaper publishing to the public at large; consequently the defendants failed on their qualified privilege plea and judgment for plaintiff for assessed damages was proper.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgments of the Court of Appeal and trial judge set aside; judgment entered for plaintiff

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgments of the Court of Appeal for Ontario and of Spence J. set aside