What is the test for slander against a business owner who makes disparaging remarks about a ski instructor?

In the present case the evidence proves that at the time the remarks were made, the plaintiff was engaged in the retail ski business and in the business of operating and giving lessons on the ski hill. McFarlane J. A., in Lawson, supra, at pp. 306-307 comments on the flexible manner in which the word "calling" is to be interpreted. In Ross v. Lamport, 1956 CanLII 7 (SCC), [1956] S.C.R. 366, [1956] 2 D.L.R. (2d) 225, a taxi-driver and owner was held to have been slandered in the course of his calling as such. It seems, therefore, remarks casting aspersions on the plaintiff's reputation as a skier come within the exception to the general rule requiring proof of special damages. In short, the slander in this case is actionable per se; at the very least, the plaintiff is entitled to nominal damage.