Jeff G. Saikaley

The plaintiff, an OPP officer, sued the defendant newspaper and its reporters for defamation over articles criticizing his conduct during the 9/11 rescue efforts in New York.

At trial, the defendants relied on the traditional defence of qualified privilege, which the trial judge rejected for two of the articles.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $125,000 in damages.

On appeal, the defendants argued for the adoption of the public interest responsible journalism defence.

The Court of Appeal recognized the new defence as part of Ontario law, holding that it strikes an appropriate balance between freedom of expression and protection of reputation.

However, the court dismissed the appeal because the defendants had not pleaded or litigated the responsible journalism standard at trial.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding it $1.7 million in damages for the respondent's breach of an amalgamation agreement involving a reverse take-over.

The appellant argued damages should have been assessed at a later date using a share value approach or by applying a multiplier to the respondent's asset value, which would have yielded over $8 million.

The respondent cross-appealed the 10% contingency discount and the 10% pre-judgment interest rate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the trial judge correctly assessed damages at the date of breach using the best available evidence (an asset valuation) because no market existed for the shares at that time, and properly exercised his discretion regarding contingencies and interest.