DATE: 20060130

DOCKET: C43748

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

WAYNE HANCOCK (Plaintiff/Appellant) v. JANE LUNN, CITY OF KAWARTHA LAKES, CHEX TELEVISION, CORUS ENTERTAINMENT INC., KIMBERLEY COULTER, THE DAILY POST, CAROLINE GRECH, ANDY WHEELER, KAWARTHA LAKES THIS WEEK, MICHAEL POWER, BRUCE DANFORTH, SEAN SUITTERS, MICHELLE McKAY (Defendants/Respondents)

BEFORE:

DOHERTY, GILLESE and ARMSTRONG JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

Robert Rueter

for the appellant

Ryder Gilliland

for the respondents

HEARD & ENDORSED:

January 20, 2006

On appeal from the order of Justice Harriet Sachs of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 8, 2005.

A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] We agree with the disposition of Sachs J. The respondent’s publication does not say or imply that the appellant was guilty of any impropriety. Although it did imply that he was suspected of impropriety. To that extent, the particulars in para. 8 stand.

[2] We also agree with Sachs J.’s conclusion that the other meanings relied on by the appellant could be taken only if the content of the other publications could be imputed to the respondent. They could not be.

[3] The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent in the amount of $5,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.