The plaintiff brought a libel action against a municipal councillor arising from statements made to a newspaper editorial board concerning an untendered municipal contract awarded to a corporation associated with the plaintiff.
The court held that although the statements could in law be capable of referring to the plaintiff, the reasonable reader would not conclude that they did so.
The defendant spoke only about the corporation and repeatedly stated he could not accuse anyone or pinpoint wrongdoing.
The court further found that the statements expressed suspicion of corruption without factual assertion and, when read in context, did not convey a defamatory meaning.
The plaintiff therefore failed to establish two essential elements of defamation: reference to the plaintiff and defamatory meaning.
