The plaintiff was Chairman of the Purchasing Commission established by the Purchasing Commission Act, R.S.B.C. 1948, c. 281, from February 1956, until March 26, 1965, and the defendant, at all material times, was the Premier of British Columbia. On October 2, 1964, the Attorney-General of the province caused criminal charges to be laid against the plaintiff alleging his unlawful acceptance of benefits in his capacity as chairman of the Purchasing Commission. On the same day an Order in Council was passed purporting to relieve the plaintiff from all his duties with respect to the Commission until further notice. On January 1965, the criminal charges against the plaintiff were dismissed and on March 8, 1965, an appeal of the Attorney- General from the acquittal of the plaintiff was, on motion made by counsel on behalf of the plaintiff, stricken out as frivolous and vexatious.
The plaintiff having refused to vacate his office, the Provincial Secretary on February 25, 1965, introduced a government bill in the Legislature entitled: "An Act to Provide for the Retirement of George Ernest Pascoe Jones". This bill passed the Legislature and received the assent of the Lieutenant-Governor on March 26, 1965.
On March 5, 1965, the defendant in the course of a speech which he delivered at a meeting of supporters of his political party used the following words: "I'm not going to talk about the Jones boy. I could say a lot, but let me just assure you of this; the position taken by the government is the right position."
In an action for slander based on the words spoken by the defendant at the meeting of March 5, 1965, the plaintiff was successful at trial. On appeal, the Court of Appeal in a unanimous judgment allowed the defendant's appeal and dismissed the action. The plaintiff then appealed to this Court.
Held: The appeal should be allowed.
The Court agreed with the trial judge and the Court of Appeal that the words in question in their natural and ordinary meaning were defamatory and calculated to disparage the plaintiff in his office as Chairman of the Purchasing Commission.
The defence of qualified privilege failed. The Court was not prepared to assent to the proposition asserted by the defence that whenever Cartwright C.J. and Martland, Judson, Ritchie and Hall JJ. S.C.R.