Baglow v. Smith

Baglow v. Smith

Summary judgment dismissing the defamation claim was inappropriate because resolution of whether the impugned words were defamatory, whether they constituted opinion or fact, and whether malice or fair comment applied required full appreciation of contextual evidence, witness testimony and possibly expert evidence about blogosphere norms; appeal allowed, order set aside and action remitted to trial.

Citation
2012 ONCA 407
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): John Baglow a.k.a. "Dr. Dawg"; Defendant (respondent): Roger Smith a.k.a. "Peter O’Donnell"; Defendant (respondent): Connie Fournier; Defendant (respondent): Mark Fournier
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation / Appeal From Summary Judgment Dismissing Defamation Claim; Matter Remitted to Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order below set aside; action to proceed to trial; costs awarded to appellant
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Fair Comment Defence, Malice, Simplified Procedure, Blogosphere Publications, Full Appreciation Test
Source Language
English
Defamation Civil Procedure Internet Law Summary Judgment Fair Comment Defence Malice Simplified Procedure Blogosphere Publications +1 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Baglow a.k.a. "Dr. Dawg"

Plaintiff (appellant)

Roger Smith a.k.a. "Peter O’Donnell"

Defendant (respondent)

Connie Fournier

Defendant (respondent)

Mark Fournier

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation / Appeal From Summary Judgment Dismissing Defamation Claim; Matter Remitted to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the impugned statement was defamatory
  2. 2 Whether the statement referred to and was published of the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether the statement constituted fact or opinion

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment dismissing the defamation claim was inappropriate because resolution of whether the impugned words were defamatory, whether they constituted opinion or fact, and whether malice or fair comment applied required full appreciation of contextual evidence, witness testimony and possibly expert evidence about blogosphere norms; appeal allowed, order set aside and action remitted to trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order below set aside; action to proceed to trial; costs awarded to appellant

Orders

  • Set aside the order of Justice P. Annis dated August 30, 2011 (2011 ONSC 5131)
  • Action remitted for trial