(High Court of Ontario) A claim was made for defamation in remarks made by the defendant about the plaintiff to media representative who were present in parliament, just after he left the Ottawa chamber at the conclusion of the question period. The plaintiff had been a senior member of a team having conduct of the delivery of weapons systems to the government. The defendant had been the relevant minister. It was accepted that the defendant was taken to assume that his acceptedly defamatory words would be repulished by the media. The defendant claimed qualified privilege.
Held: The defence was not made out. There was no duty falling on him at the time to utter the words he did, and nor was there a reciprocal duty in the press to receive the statement.
(1978) 87 DLR (3d) 373, (1978) 4 CCLT 265
Cited – Chaytor and Others, Regina v SC 1-Dec-2010
The defendants faced trial on charges of false accounting in connection in different ways with their expenses claims whilst serving as members of the House of Commons. They appealed against rejection of their assertion that the court had no . .
 UKSC 52,  WLR (D) 311, UKSC 2010/0195,  1 Cr App R 22,  3 WLR 1707,  1 All ER 805,  1 AC 684
Cited – Makudi v Baron Triesman of Tottenham CA 26-Feb-2014
Appeal against strike out of claims for defamation and malicious falsehood. The defendant had given evidence to the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee of the House of Commons with material highly critical of the claimant, a member of FIFA’s . .
 EWCA Civ 179,  EMLR 17,  3 All ER 36,  1 QB 839,  WLR(D) 98,  QB 839,  2 WLR 1228
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.427747