Manitoba Free Press Co. v. Nagy

Manitoba Free Press Co. v. Nagy

A reckless, false publication disparaging specific property which causes special damage (depreciation, loss of rent, expenses) imports absence of bona fides (legal malice) and supports an action for slander of title; where falsity, absence of good faith and special damage are proved the plaintiff is entitled to damages.

Citation
(1907) 39 SCR 340
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Manitoba Free Press Company; Plaintiff Respondent: Rachel Miriam Gomez Nagy
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 November 1907
Procedural Posture
Defamation Appeal (slander of Title) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Manitoba
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Manitoba affirmed in favour of the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Slander of Title, Fair Comment, Presumption of Malice, Special Damages, Negligent Publication
Source Language
English
Torts Defamation Property Law Slander of Title Fair Comment Presumption of Malice Special Damages Negligent Publication

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manitoba Free Press Company

Defendant Appellant

Rachel Miriam Gomez Nagy

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Defamation Appeal (slander of Title) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Manitoba

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an action lies for slander of real property
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff proved the falsity of the publication
  3. 3 Whether malice must be proved and what constitutes malice

Ratio Decidendi

A reckless, false publication disparaging specific property which causes special damage (depreciation, loss of rent, expenses) imports absence of bona fides (legal malice) and supports an action for slander of title; where falsity, absence of good faith and special damage are proved the plaintiff is entitled to damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Manitoba affirmed in favour of the plaintiff

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $1,000 and costs (as ordered by the Court of Appeal)