Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada et al. v. Dalrymple

Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada et al. v. Dalrymple

The majority held that although the statements were uttered on occasions of qualified privilege, there was sufficient extrinsic and intrinsic evidence of express malice against the individual defendants to warrant submitting the question of malice to a jury; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and a new trial was directed.

Citation
[1965] SCR 302
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada; Defendant Appellant: W.G. Attridge; Defendant Appellant: A.G. Dennis; Defendant Appellant: Blythe Moore; Plaintiff Respondent: Kenneth C. Dalrymple
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 March 1965
Procedural Posture
Tort Slander (defamation) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Final Judgment Directing New Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; new trial ordered (Judson J. dissenting)
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Express Malice, Occasion of Privilege, Loss of Privilege, Evidence Sufficiency
Source Language
English
Torts Defamation Employment Law Qualified Privilege Express Malice Occasion of Privilege Loss of Privilege Evidence Sufficiency

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada

Defendant Appellant

W.G. Attridge

Defendant Appellant

A.G. Dennis

Defendant Appellant

Blythe Moore

Defendant Appellant

Kenneth C. Dalrymple

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort Slander (defamation) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Final Judgment Directing New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the alleged statements were made on occasions of qualified privilege
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient extrinsic or intrinsic evidence of express malice to rebut qualified privilege and go to the jury
  3. 3 Whether the privilege was lost because the statements were irrelevant or excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that although the statements were uttered on occasions of qualified privilege, there was sufficient extrinsic and intrinsic evidence of express malice against the individual defendants to warrant submitting the question of malice to a jury; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and a new trial was directed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; new trial ordered (Judson J. dissenting)

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs (Judson J. dissenting)
  • New trial directed on plaintiff's action for slander