Private Disclosure of Private Facts

Private Disclosure of Private Facts
Student Name: School Name:
COURT OF CANADA
CITATION: Mary v Wilber, 2012 CC 21, [2012] 4 S.C.R. 134 Date: 20120221 Docket: 22211
BETWEEN: Mary White  Plaintiff and Wilber John Defendant
IN THE COURT OF CANADATort- Slander-Private disclosure of a private factStatement of Facts
The plaintiff, Mary White, a mother of three is married to Richard and they live in 23 Mapple Street, Smalltown. She is claiming that, Mr. Wilber John who works at Prairie Motor Sales, 3 Main Street, Smalltown is spreading rumours that she is a former prostitute. Mrs. White admits that in 1989-1990 at the age of 16, engaged in prostitution for a short period in Toronto. She claims that she ran away from her father who abused her. Having no place to sleep, she was taken in by a pimp who later introduced her to the prostitution rings in the city. She however claims that on the spring of 1990, she fled Toronto and took up employment as a waitress in Midtown Ontario. It is here that she met her husband and later got married. Despite her husband’s supportive attitude and character, Mrs. White has always feared telling her husband of her past and she justifies this by claiming her husband would leave her if she did so. The plaintiff sates that she first heard of the rumours when she went to attend a dance at the Legion with her friends on 24th May 2005. She claims that the defendant greeted her on entering the premise and the defendant referred to her as the ‘hooker’ housewife. The plaintiff explains that the audience laughed at her but she ignored the remarks until a friend and neighbour came to inquire whether the remarks were true. That is, whether she used to be a prostitute. The plaintiff and her husband claim that friends, relatives, neighbours and even strangers have in numerous occasions inquired about the plaintiff’s past. The plaintiff claims that since the revelation of her past status, she has seen contempt from her neighbours and friends; furthermore she has reduced her engagement in the community. She has also had to quit her job as it has also affected her relation with her customers. She claims that she tried to make the defendant stop spreading the rumours but he defendant has refused.  The defendant however sticks to his guns and maintains that he used to see the plaintiff “stationed” outside a hamburger place he worked in Toronto in 1989-1990. The defendant is deeply concerned that the plaintiff is actively engaged and involved in girl guides and with the local church. With her involved in such activities it occurs to the defendant that the community is not aware of the plaintiff’s past life. The defendant decided to expose the plaintiff for what she was. If left with the children alone, she might mess with them. The defendant recalls that the plaintiff called him and asked him to stop, but the defendant refused stating that he had the right to speak his mind out. Further, the defendant has not made any publication of the information nor did he make a formal public pronouncement of the fact. He simply spread the word privately. 
Legal Precedent  In 1970, defamation was well described in the case of Murphy v. LaMarsh (13 DLR 3d 484). In finding the libel actionable, the BC Supreme Court stated that defamation is a shameful act attributed to a man (he stole my purse), a shameful character, a shameful course of action or a shameful condition. It is important to note that defamation law protects a person’s reputation and not a person’s feeling. In Canadian tort law, there are several major points of defamation thus: Defamation is a strict liability tort and therefore an unusual tort. The law does not care whether the defamation was done intentionally or as a result of negligence. Materials are presumed to be false and malicious in defamation. What a person publishes he does so at his own disadvantage. An actual reputation must be the directly attacked, an alleged reputation that they victim may believe to exist does not count. The victims reputation in the community will against the statement will be assessed by the judge. The remarks made must be harmful. In assessing the harmfulness of the remarks, the judge will take into consideration the situation of the defamed person. The defamatory remarks must be clearly aimed at the plaintiff. The remarks constituting defamation must be conveyed to a third party. In this instance defamation between two parties causes no damage because no damage to reputation is occasioned between the two parties. With libel however, damage is always presumed as it has been published. Verbal defamation or slander, there has to be proof of repetition to other people that is damage has actually to be proved. However, there are exceptions, firstly the defamation has to impute the commission of a crime, secondly the unchaste status of a woman. Thirdly it has to relate to professional inco...