Court File and Parties

CITATION: Sanjh Savera Weekly v. Ajit Newspaper Advertising, 2008 ONCA 145

DATE: 20080228

DOCKET: C45698

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

LANG, MACFARLAND and LAFORME JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

SANJH SAVERA WEEKLY, HANSRA ENTERPRISES INC. and SUKHMINDER SINGH HANSRA

Plaintiffs (Respondent)

and

AJIT NEWSPAPER ADVERTISING, MARKETING AND COMMUNICATION INC., AJIT WEEKLY NEWSPAPER, DARSHAN KAUR, DARSHAN SINGH, KANWALJIT KAU, KANWAL SANDEEP SINGH, KANWAR NAVDEEP SINGH and VINNY BAINS

Defendants (Appellants)

Counsel: Bobby H. Sachdeva and David Contant for the appellants Sidney Klotz for the respondent

Heard: February 26, 2008

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Spence of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 20, 2007.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellants raise four grounds of appeal.

[2] On the first ground, the appellants have failed to persuade us that the trial judge erred in refusing to admit a 1996 newspaper article as evidence of the respondent’s reputation at the time of the 2002 defamation. Even if the article should have been admitted, and apart from the fact that the article did not go to the sting of the defamation, it would not have affected the outcome because the respondent’s views were before the court. The trial judge told the appellants they could ask questions about the respondent’s views on Khalistan and the assassination of Indira Ghandi and those questions were asked and answered without objection.

[3] On the second ground, regarding the notice to admit, the admissions relied on by the appellants were before the trial judge. Full and detailed written submissions were presented to the trial judge – simply because the trial judge did not specifically refer to the Notice to Admit in his reasons does not mean that he did not consider that evidence.

[4] On the third ground, the appellants fairly conceded in argument that they could not point to any manner in which the trial judge used the contempt evidence in his determination of the merits of the case. We see no error in the procedure followed by the trial judge.

[5] Finally, on the fourth ground, it is clear from his reasons that the trial judge was alive to the proper test for punitive damages. In our view, it is implicit in the trial judge’s reasons, read as a whole, that he concluded that the malicious publication offended the court’s sense of decency. Given the particulars of the defamation, and the outrageous nature of certain aspects of the defamation, it is clear that the punitive damages were intended to have a deterrent effect and to punish the appellants.

[6] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondents fixed in the amount of $6,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.