Ontario Superior Court of Justice
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
- Plaintiff’s Claim (December 22 2008)
- Kinsman Robinson Galleries Statement of Defence (January 14 2009)
- Expert Report of Don Robinson (Sept 14 2010)
- Judgment & Reasons: of the Honourable Judge Godfrey (January 11, 2011)
- Sworn Transcripts of Sunny Kim and James White – Jan 11 2011
Note: The Kinsman Robinson Galleries / Joe Otavnik Minutes of Settlement (of April 27 2009) which were disclosed to the public include the concession from the Kinsman Robinson Galleries that;
“KRG will remove all references to Sinclair which it has posted on its website known as http://genuinemorrisseau.bloqspot(.the “Blog”) and will not re-publish those posts on any other website.
In this letter to Ritchie Sinclair dated May 14 2009 Kinsman Robinson Galleries sought consent to dismiss Otavnik’s claim against KRG and also the Defendant’s claim KRG had filed against Sinclair.