M. Philip Tunley

The defendants appealed a trial judgment awarding the plaintiff physician $200,000 in general damages for defamation arising from an investigative television broadcast.

The broadcast suggested the plaintiff knowingly prescribed dangerous heart medication and was dishonest.

The trial judge found the broadcast defamatory, rejected defenses of qualified privilege and fair comment, and found malice.

The plaintiff cross-appealed the denial of exemplary damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants' appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's liability or general damages assessment.

The Court allowed the cross-appeal, awarding $150,000 in exemplary damages because the defendants distorted the plaintiff's words and maintained their position through the appeal despite the finding of malice.

The defendants appealed a trial judgment awarding the plaintiff doctor $200,000 in general damages for defamation arising from a television broadcast.

The plaintiff cross-appealed the dismissal of his claim for aggravated damages.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's liability findings or assessment of general damages.

However, the Court allowed the cross-appeal, finding that the plaintiff was attacked in his profession and defamed using his own distorted words, warranting an award of $150,000 in aggravated damages.

The defendants appealed a trial judgment awarding the plaintiff, a doctor and research scientist, $950,000 in general, aggravated, and punitive damages for defamation arising from a television broadcast.

The broadcast falsely implied the plaintiff supported prescribing killer drugs, was in a conflict of interest, and acted negligently or dishonestly.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the defences of justification, qualified privilege, and fair comment failed because the broadcast was deliberately slanted and the defendants did not honestly believe their thesis.

The damage awards and the award of solicitor and client costs were affirmed due to the egregious and malicious conduct of the defendants.

An Indigenous band appealed from a summary judgment disposition concerning reserve lands sold in the 19th century without a lawful formal surrender.

The Court of Appeal held that there had been no surrender and that the claim was not barred by statutory limitation periods, but concluded that declaratory and possessory relief should nevertheless be refused.

The court applied public law discretion and equitable doctrines, emphasizing the band's historical acquiescence, the extraordinary delay in asserting the land claim, and the reliance of innocent third-party landowners who had held and developed the properties for generations.

The band was left to pursue its damages claims against the Crown.

The appellant was charged with selling food in a false, misleading, or deceptive manner under s. 5(1) of the Food and Drugs Act.

The issue on appeal was whether the offence was one of absolute or strict liability, and whether it offended s. 7 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the statutory wording did not explicitly exclude a defence of due diligence.

Presuming that Parliament intends its legislation to conform to the Charter, the Court concluded that s. 5(1) creates a strict liability offence for which a defence of due diligence is available.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal allowing the Crown's appeal from an acquittal on charges under the Export and Import Permits Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the legislation was properly construed as creating a strict liability offence.

Applying R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc., the Court held that the restriction on the presumption of innocence under s. 11(d) of the Charter was justifiable under s. 1.