Joseph Otavnik v Ritchie Sinclair

2008

♦

The plaintiff has failed to satisfy me on items b), c) and d). Firstly, the plaintiff has failed to satisfy me on a balance of probabilities that the statements of Mr. Sinclair are false. I am not prepared to accept the evidence of Mr. McLeod for the plaintiff over that of Mr. Robinson for the defendant as to the authenticity of the painting. Both witnesses are reputed art dealers who gave their respective opinions, but the plaintiff’s evidence did not sufficiently tip the scales in the plaintiff’s favour.

Secondly, I am not satisfied that the defendant acted with malice. The defendant appears to have worked with Norval Morrisseau for many years. His statements regarding the plaintiff’s painting, in my opinion, have been made without malice and for the purpose of reiterating previously made statements in newspaper articles and through statements made by or attributed to Morrisseau, himself. Finally, the plaintiff has failed to prove he suffered special damages.

Jan 11 2011 Judgment of Honourable Judge Godfrey