Can a libel action be brought against someone who makes a defamatory statement in good faith on a privileged occasion?

Saskatchewan, Canada

The following excerpt is from Strutt v. Ahmed and Samuel, 1986 CanLII 3028 (SK QB):

In Horrocks v. Lowe, [1975] A.C. 135, Lord Diplock said, at p. 149: “The public interest that the law should provide an effective means whereby a man can vindicate his reputation against calumny has nevertheless to be accommodated to the competing public interest in permitting men to communicate frankly and freely with one another about matters in respect of which the law recognizes that they have a duty to perform or an interest to protect in doing so. What is published in good faith on matters of these kinds is published on a privileged occasion. It is not actionable even though it be defamatory and turns out to be untrue. With some exceptions which are irrelevant to the instant appeal, the privilege is not absolute but qualified. It is lost if the occasion which gives rise to it is misused. For in all cases of qualified privilege there is some special reason of public policy why the law accords immunity from suit the existence of some public or private duty, whether legal or moral, on the part of the maker of the defamatory statement which justifies his communicating it or of some interest of his own which he is entitled to protect by doing so. If he uses the occasion for some other reason he loses the protection of the privilege. “So, the motive with which the defendant on a privileged occasion made a statement defamatory of the plaintiff becomes crucial. The protection might, however, be illusory if the onus lay on him to prove that he was actuated solely by a sense of the relevant duty or a desire to protect the relevant interest. So he is entitled to be protected by the privilege unless some other dominant and improper motive on his part is proved. ‘Express malice’ is the term of art descriptive of such a motive. Broadly speaking, It means malice in the popular sense of a desire to injure the person who is defamed and this is generally the motive which the plaintiff sets out to prove. But to destroy the privilege the desire to injure must be the dominant motive for the defamatory publication knowledge that it will have that effect is not enough if the defendant is nevertheless acting in accordance with a sense of duty or in bona fide protection of his own legitimate interests.”

Other Questions

What is a privileged occasion and what is the effect on privileged occasions? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
What is the test for defamatory statements to be made in a libel action? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
What is the cause of action against a defendant who makes false statements to a plaintiff? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
Is an involuntary statement by an accused to someone in authority not a statement within Section 5 of the Criminal Code? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
Does the amendment to the Rules of Civil Procedure make it possible for an action of that kind to be brought before a jury to be heard without prejudice? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
What is the legal test for procedural issues in a civil action brought by a plaintiff in Canada? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
Does a common law procedure act, 1854, ch. 125, which enacted that a plaintiff is not entitled to any costs in an action commenced after the action was commenced? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
What is the test for a prima facie cause of action in a personal injury action? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
What documents are properly to be considered on an application to strike out a statement of claim on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable cause of action? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
What is the test for damages in a personal injury action brought by a defendant who failed to appear in court? (Saskatchewan, Canada)

Alexi white

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.