CITATION: Turmel v.

CBC (Dragons’ Den), 2011 ONSC 2400

COURT FILE NO.: CV-699-2010
DATE: 2011-04-19

ONTARIO

2011 ONSC 2400 (CanLII)

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N: )
)
JOHN C. TURMEL ) Self Represented
)
)
)
Plaintiff )
)
- and - )
)
)
CBC (DRAGONS’ DEN) ) Andrea Gonsalves, for the Defendant
)
)
)
Defendant )
)
)
) HEARD: March 17, 2011

The Honourable Mr. Justice H. S. Arrell

JUDGMENT

Introduction:

[1] The plaintiff accepted an invitation to appear on C.B.C.’s Dragons’ Den. He has taken

offence to the way the program was edited, aired and his treatment by the “Dragons”. The
 -2-

plaintiff has therefore sued C.B.C. for defamation and breach of contract. C.B.C. has brought

this summary judgment motion seeking a dismissal of the law suit.

Facts:

2011 ONSC 2400 (CanLII)

[2] The plaintiff was contacted on May 27, 2009 by C.B.C. and invited to attend a taping of

Dragons’ Den and pitch a proposal. He did so on May 31, 2009. A portion was broadcast on

January 13, 2010 and on January 20, 2010 the plaintiff commenced his first law suit.

[3] Mr. Justice Lofchik heard a summary judgment motion by the defendant for dismissal of

that law suit on August 12, 2010.

[4] He released his reasons for granting summary judgment and dismissing the law suit of the

plaintiff on September 27, 2010 with costs.

[5] The defendant saw fit to rebroadcast the January 13, 2010 episode involving the plaintiff

on August 4, 2010 and also made it available to the public on the C.B.C.’s website.

[6] The plaintiff commenced this law suit on November 12, 2010, seeking a judgment for

breach of contract and for libel and slander.

[7] The facts of this case are set out accurately and in detail in the judgment of Mr. Justice

Lofchik. I find those facts to be the facts in the case currently at bar. The only addition to those

facts are the second airing and web posting of the one minute episode. The plaintiff has

specifically sued for breach of contract in this law suit. Mr. Justice Lofchik found as a fact that

there was no such pleading in the first law suit. As well the plaintiff gave notice under the Libel

and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L. 12 within the appropriate time required by s. 5(1) after the
 -3-

second airing of the episode. He had given no such notice before issuing the first statement of

claim which Justice Lofchik held to be fatal.

Analysis:

2011 ONSC 2400 (CanLII)

[8] The defence argues that the second law suit is Res Judicata as the issues on identical facts

have already been determined by Justice Lofchik. It is further argued that the consent is a

complete bar and in any event there was no libel or slander.

[9] The plaintiff argues the facts are different as there was a second publication, notice was

given regarding that second publication and in any event there was a breach of contract in that

the pertinent parts of the taping were not aired.

[10] Mr. Justice Lofchik dealt in detail with the consent and I agree with his findings. He also

concluded that even if the plaintiff had pleaded breach of contract there would still have been no

genuine issue for trial because the consent was a complete bar. I agree. The consent, which I

find the plaintiff fully understood, read and accepted makes it abundantly clear that C.B.C. had

sole and exclusive rights to the taping and to edit and use it in any way or anytime it wished.

[11] The plaintiff further agreed by signing the consent that he may well be portrayed in

“…disparaging, defamatory, embarrassing or of an otherwise unfavourable nature which may

expose me to public ridicule, humiliation or condemnation”. The plaintiff also agreed pursuant

to paragraph 27 of the consent not to sue for any loss or damage no matter how caused.

[12] I find that there is no evidence that the consent and release were not entered into freely,

voluntarily and with full knowledge and understanding of the plaintiff. No evidence has been led
 -4-

that it was in any way unconscionable and like Justice Lofchik I find as a fact it was not. As

such it is a complete bar to this law suit and there is no genuine issue for trial.

[13] I have reviewed in detail the transcript of the episode that the plaintiff complains defamed

2011 ONSC 2400 (CanLII)

him. There are no words in that transcript that are capable of slander or libel. Indeed the

plaintiff argued before me that the real defamation is the editing down to 57 seconds and the

public not seeing the full pitch is the libel and slander. I disagree. The public saw and heard

only the 57 seconds. The conclusion of the Dragons that the pitch they heard made no sense to

them is not libel or slander.

[14] The final issue is that of Res Judicata. C.B.C. argues this matter has already been dealt

with in its entirety by Justice Lofchik. The plaintiff urges me to find the facts are different in the

case at bar because he pleaded breach of contract and gave notice under the Act. I disagree. The

facts of both cases are identical. Justice Lofchik dealt with breach of contract as if pleaded and

found no genuine issue for trial. He also found the consent to be a complete bar. I have come to

the same conclusion. I find there are no new facts or new issues. The action should be

dismissed under the doctrine of Res Judicata.

Conclusion:

[15] For all of the reasons given I find there is no genuine issue for trial and this action is

dismissed. The parties agreed that costs should follow the cause and I should assess them. I

have reviewed the costs outline of the defendant. I fix costs at $7,500.00 inclusive of taxes and

disbursements.

Released: April 19, 2011

 -5-

Arrell J.

2011 ONSC 2400 (CanLII)

 CITATION: Turmel v. CBC (Dragons’ Den), 2011 ONSC 2400
COURT FILE NO.: CV-699-2010
DATE: 2011-04-19

ONTARIO

2011 ONSC 2400 (CanLII)

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

JOHN C. TURMEL

Plaintiff

- and –

CBC (DRAGONS’ DEN)

Defendant

BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice

H. S. Arrell

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ARRELL J.

Released: April 19, 2011