The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff $30,000 general damages and $25,000 punitive damages over defamatory statements made by the defendant in an online chat platform called “Discord.”
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded $1,000 general damages to the corporate plaintiff and $1,000 to each of the two individual plaintiffs over a Google review posted in October, 2021. The defendant had removed the review within one or two days of receiving a cease and desist letter from the plaintiffs’ lawyer.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff $5,000 moral damages, $2,500 punitive damages and $12,176.47 for his legal fees over defamatory Google reviews.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff $7,000 moral damages and $2,500 punitive damages over defamatory remarks by the defendant in a Mandarin language chat group aimed at members of the Chinese community. In assessing damages, the court found that the defamatory remarks did not appear to have had a lasting effect on the plaintiff’s reputation, noting that the dissemination was limited and the chat group was small. Some of the defamatory exchanges took place when no more than ten people had access to them.
The Court of Quebec held that three Facebook posts by the defendant were defamatory and awarded the plaintiff $12,000 compensatory damages and $8,000 punitive damages. Approximately 200 people read the first post and there were 15 disparaging or threatening comments. The Court held that the posts came after a long series of relentless activities hostile to the plaintiff, including prior disparaging publications.
The Quebec Superior Court (Civil Division) awarded the plaintiff hotel company $25,000 compensatory damages and $5,000 punitive damages over defamatory posts on social media, including Google Reviews. A permanent injunction was also ordered.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff company and its owner damages aggregating $350,000 plus a permanent injunction against a professional YouTuber over a relentless campaign of defamation, which saw the defendant often posting multiple times a day on multiple YouTube channels. Broken down, the award consisted of $250,000 general damages, $50,000 aggravated damages, and $50,000 punitive damages.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff $3,500 moral damages plus $3,500 punitive damages over a defamatory Facebook post illustrated with the plaintiff’s photo. The post remained on Facebook for 6 days and provoked about 20 comments. The plaintiff was also granted a permanent injunction.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff elected official and adjunct instructor $35,000 general damages and $10,000 punitive damages over allegations made in an interview which was eventually posted online.
The Alberta Court of Kings Bench granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, a Quebec-based musician, ordering the defendant California resident to pay defamation damages aggregating $1,500,000. The Court noted that “[a]ll the material posted on the [defendant’s] Instagram Account was second or third-hand, consisting of reposts, which themselves linked material from elsewhere on social media. …An obvious collateral purpose of the Instagram Account wass to ‘cancel’ [the plaintiff], frequently tagging his agent, producers, and venues where he was to perform.” Discussing liability for reposting other social media, the Court stated that “[t]here appears to exist a common misconception among social media users that reposting defamatory content generated by others is a protected activity, under the doctrine of fair comment or otherwise. This misunderstanding should be correctly as firmly as possible. A repetition, republication, or repost of a defamatory statement is every bit as defamatory, and every bit as subject to liability in tort, as the original statement. ‘No one is justified in stating false facts about another merely because someone else has done so.’” “The ‘repetition rule’ in common law holds that every person who repeats a defamatory statement is liable to the same extent as the person who originally published it … the Supreme Court has observed that ‘[m]aintaining the repetition rule is particularly important in the age of the Internet, when defamatory material can spread from one website to another at great speed.”
In addition to awarding damages for actual loss of income in the amount of $1 million, the Court assessed general damages in the amount of $350,000 plus aggravated damages of $150,000. The Court found that the defendant’s campaign of defamation became “’high-handed, spiteful, or malicious’ … when she ignored obvious information to the contrary, reposted and kept up a libel that was immediately clarified by the original poster as not being about [the plaintiff], made no mention of contradictory accounts refuting what she had posted, and pursued a campaign to cancel a complete stranger on the strength of the flimsiest online dross.” The Court also granted a permanent injunction prohibiting any statement, original or derived from other existing material or posts in the public domain or otherwise, conveying the defamatory meanings which were the subject of this lawsuit. The Court noted that this judgment “highlight[s] the risks of blithely reposting often anonymous and deeply defamatory material from the lawless, fact-averse wildlands of social media.”
The Ontario Superior Court awarded the plaintiff general damages of $400,000 plus $180,000 for substantial indemnity costs in a default judgment over defamatory videos published on the Internet. The Court held that the defendant had “engaged in a vicious, carefully orchestrated and unlawful campaign of defamation … which has been carried out on various online platforms … for the express purpose of publicly embarrassing the plaintiff”. The defamatory videos were shared on Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube.
The Court of Quebec awarded the plaintiffs $1,000 compensatory damages and $1,500 punitive damages against the defendant restaurant owner over a post on the defendant’s personal Facebook page (which had 500 friends) which was ruled to be defamatory. Although published for only 24 hours, the post was shared more than 50 times and generated more than 20 comments. The court noted the multiplier effect of dissemination on the Internet and found the post was “irreversible” once shared by third parties.
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) awarded the defendant/counterclaimant $1,500 over a disparaging Facebook post which depicted a woman with hair the same colour as the defendant/counterclaimant. Twenty-eight comments followed this post, one of which named the defendant/counterclaimant, and one of the plaintiff’s replies to the comments appeared to confirm the post related to the defendant/counterclaimant.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff general damages of $72,000 and special damages of $180,000 over a defamatory 2015 Business in Vancouver (“BIV”) article which appeared both in the print edition and on the BIV website. The online edition included a photograph of the plaintiff and was only removed from public access in July, 2021.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded $75,000 general damages and $10,000 punitive damages to the plaintiff, a former soldier, over defamatory social media posts. The Court inferred that “generally, people follow particular social media because they like or are interested in what those sites say”. “[T]here is no reason to think, or evidence to suggest, that the average person knew enough about [the plaintiff] … so as to be able to form the conclusion that [the defamatory] allegations about him were not true or not from a credible source.”
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff $200,000 defamation damages over posts made by the defendant on social media and accusations contained in a self-published book sold on Amazon and Kindle. The Court held that the power of the pen cannot be exercised in a complete vacuum, to the detriment of others; that this includes destroying a person’s reputation with serious accusations. Referring to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Hill v Church of Scientology of Canada, the Court held there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact. The Court also granted an injunction requiring the defendant to remove her self-published book from circulation and sale in its current version.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiffs $20,000 damages over a defamatory review posted on Google Reviews. The review was public for under three months. The Court held that the defendant was given an opportunity to apologize and time to take down the review but refused to do so.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff $10,000 general damages over an online comment posted to Facebook by the defendant in August 2019. The post was shared 52 times according to a screenshot produced at trial
The Court of Quebec ordered the defendant to pay $10,000 moral damages and $10,000 punitive damages over defamatory allegations made orally and in writing, including letters and emails, which the defendant reiterated at trial. The defamatory communications were made to numerous people and organizations, including government entities, jeopardizing the plaintiff’s ability to carry out its commercial activities. The allegations targeted both the plaintiff company and its president.
The Alberta Court of King’s Bench, assessing damages after a default judgment against the defendant, awarded $50,000 general damages to the female plaintiff and $75,000 general damages to the male plaintiff over defamatory posts on the defendant’s Instagram account, which had 16,000 viewers. The Court described the defendant as “a popular social media influencer”. The Court also noted that “[t]he insidious nature of comments posted on social media is that the plaintiff will never know the impact on their reputation as a result of defamatory comments. … the more people exposed to lies the greater the likely harm.”
The Quebec Superior Court awarded defamation damages aggregating $185,000 to five defendants on their counterclaims over false accusations by the plaintiff which appeared in an online report and various blogs. The defendants NB and TV were each awarded $35,000 moral damages and $15,000 punitive damages. The defendants AW and AM were each awarded $25,000 moral damages and $15,000 punitive damages. The defendant JS received an award of $10,000 moral damages and $5,000 punitive damages. [This case related to the administration of an estate. The Court also made other monetary awards to each of the defendants on various other grounds.]
The Quebec Superior Court awarded defamation damages aggregating $60,000 over posts by the defendant (a business competitor of the corporate plaintiff) on the “Google My Business” platform. Defamatory posts involving a fake notice under a pseudonym impugned the corporate plaintiff’s billing practices. The defendant also created a fake Google profile impersonating the individual plaintiff BP and used it to submit disparaging, false “reviews” of various other companies in the same industry. The court held the false reviews demeaned the innocent competitors and sowed discord. Accordingly, the Court found that usurping the identities of the individual plaintiffs to sow discord was more serious than simply making a false post under a fake name to attack the corporate plaintiff. In the circumstances, the court awarded $5,000 moral damages and $5,000 punitive damages to the corporate plaintiff. The individual plaintiff BP was awarded $15,000 moral damages and $15,000 punitive damages. The individual plaintiff FB was awarded $10,000 moral damages and $10,000 punitive damages.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiffs the sum of $450,000 for general damages for defamation noting that the defendant’s defamatory statements included over 1,000 individual defamatory postings on Stockhouse and other online investor forums. The Court held the defendant published them “repeatedly, and when they are taken down they are republished on a new website.” “The Court of Appeal observed in Barrick Gold [Corp. v Lopehandia, 2004 CarswellOnt 2258 (C.A.)] the ‘dogged pursuit of a libelous campaign even after the commencement of the proceedings’ as a seriously aggravating factor: Barrick Gold at para. 51.” “In my view, this conduct is exacerbated by the use, as here, of ‘burner’ email accounts, VPNs, and the use of websites and servers in foreign jurisdictions such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, all done with an effort to conceal the identity of those publishing the statements and make them difficult to track and account for their actions.” The Court also granted a permanent injunction, noting the defendant’s failure to respond to this lawsuit, his efforts to evade service of documents, and the fact that the defamatory statements “continue to be published without contrition or apology.”
The Alberta Court of King’s Bench, assessing defamation damages following a default judgment, ordered the defendants to pay defamation damages aggregating $6,655,000 over a website article. The award to the individual plaintiff Docken consisted of $500,000 general damages, $50,000 aggravated damages and $5,000,000 punitive damages. The award to Guardian Law Group consisted of $100,000 general damages, $5,000 aggravated damages, and $1,000,000 punitive damages. [The formal entered Order of the Court is available from the Calgary Court Registry. This judgment is referred to in later decisions: see paragraph 4 of 2023 ABKB 515 and paragraphs 6 and 7 of 2023 ABKB 661.]
The BC Supreme Court awarded defamation damages aggregating $1.5 million dollars over a “campaign of defamation carried out by one of the largest traffic control services companies in British Columbia against its main competitor.” The defamatory publications were posted to various Internet sites, on Telus’ ethics complaint line, and set out in correspondence sent to Premier Christy Clark and Rich Coleman, the minister responsible for BC Hydro. The individual plaintiff Malak, who controlled the corporate plaintiffs, was awarded general damages of $500,000 and aggravated damages of $200,000. The corporate plaintiffs were awarded general damages of $300,000. Punitive damages of $500,00 were awarded to all plaintiffs. “The claims … relate to electronic publications on or via the Internet, through posting to an online complaint platform and by email. The most broadly circulated publications were made on websites and blogs. It is arguable that defamation carried out over the Internet may be more damaging to reputation than defamation carried out by other means because of the possibility that the publications will be seen by a broader audience.”
The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia awarded the plaintiff, a senior official of a foreign state, $100,000 general damages, $50,000 aggravated damages and $25,000 punitive damages over serious false and defamatory statements including videos on YouTube, Telegram and Facebook plus posts to Facebook and Telegram. The Court observed that “[t]he Internet has the extraordinary capacity to replicate the defamatory messages. The defamatory statements, then, have tremendous power to harm [the plaintiff’s] reputation.” The defendant, a resident of Nova Scotia, was also permanently enjoined from publishing any further defamatory statements about the plaintiff.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff businessman $50,000 general damages and $25,000 aggravated damages against the defendant, his ex-wife and business partner, over two Facebook posts which made serious defamatory accusations. The Court concluded that the defamatory posts, which appeared on the Facebook page of the plaintiff’s business, were communicated to a large number of people as the Facebook page had over two thousand followers. The Court also considered that the defendant was using the Facebook posts to gain some advantage in unrelated legal proceedings.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice assessed defamation damages aggregating $4,773,000 in a case involving claims by 53 plaintiffs against one individual defendant over a targeted campaign involving tens of thousands of postings on the internet. Each of the 53 plaintiffs was awarded general damages, in amounts ranging from a high of $90,000 to a low of $55,000 depending on their individual circumstances. The aggregate sum awarded for general damages amounted to $4,245,000. Aggravated damages in the amount of $1,500 were awarded to each of 34 of the plaintiffs, aggregating $51,000. Punitive damages in the amount of $9,000 were awarded to each of the 53 plaintiffs, aggregating $477,000.
Citing the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229, the Court held that the ability of the defendant to pay is not a relevant consideration in assessing general or aggravated damages. However, citing Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co., [2022] 1 SCR 595, the Court held that the financial means of the defendant is relevant in the assessment of punitive damages, where the goals are retribution, denunciation and deterrence. An award of punitive damages that is too large my not achieve the goal if the defendant is poor.
The Court held that the defamatory publications at issue were salacious, outrageous and malevolent. “During his submissions, the defendant acknowledged that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to remove the content from the internet and submits that the posts are multiplied by bots. He pointed to a post for the plaintiff [C] which he submits has been replicated ‘word for word for word’ for six to seven years. He argued he could not accept responsibility for replication caused by bots. In this context, the Court stated: “In my view, bots are a feature of the internet, being the mode of publication chosen by the defendant to disseminate the egregious and vile defamatory postings about the plaintiffs. It was therefore reasonably foreseeable that those postings would be replicated and multiplied on the Internet, such is the nature of the Internet.” “In this case, the defendant chose a medium which was borderless, had an audience that was global, with the click of a mouse, and an impact that is continually amplified, if his submissions are true, by the existence of bots. That is to say, the defamatory statements will perhaps always reside on the Internet.”
In addition to the damage award, the Court enjoined the defendant from posting further defamatory statements or comments of the nature and kind which were the subject of this litigation.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice, assessing defamation damages pursuant to a judgment in default of defence, awarded the plaintiff union $50,000 general damages and $25,000 punitive damages over four defamatory statements. Three of the defamatory statements were made in posts to the defendant’s public Facebook account; one to the plaintiff’s public Facebook account. “It is difficult to categorize the defendant’s actions in this case as a ‘campaign’ against the SIU. Rather, it was the repetition of the same initial lie on a few occasions.” Punitive damages were awarded based on the Court’s finding that the defendant is “shameless, unapologetic and ungovernable.” In awarding substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiff, the Court found that the defendant had engaged in egregious conduct that requires denunciation by the Court, including repeating the defamatory statements over the course of the legal proceedings rather than apologizing or withdrawing them.
The Alberta Court of Queens Bench awarded $300,000 general damages for defamation, plus $100,000 general damages for harassment, and a further $250,000 in aggravated damages to the individual plaintiff Nunn against the defendant Johnston. The Court described the defendant as “a self-appointed spokesperson for Albertans who opposed public health measures intended to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic” who at the relevant time was “the host of an online talk show, and a prodigious creator of social media” and someone who “enjoyed a moment of notoriety as candidate for mayor of Calgary in 2021” The “untrue and unfair” allegations of misconduct by the defendant were disseminated by way of an online talk show and in interviews with reporters for mainstream media outlets in a “pernicious” manner and intended to reach a wide audience. The Court found that the defendant’s harassing conduct caused the plaintiff to fear for her safety, the safety of her children, and that the harassment affected the way that she and her family lived their lives. In granting a permanent injunction, the Court stated: “While I have awarded damages for these causes of action, Mr. Johnston is unrepentant, and I have no confidence that the damages award will function as any sort of disincentive to him continuing to defame and harass” the individual plaintiff.
Noting that the defendant Johnston had “pleaded guilty to criminal harassment in respect of the very same statements that are the subject of this civil proceeding”, the Court held that the time had come for Alberta to recognize a common law tort of harassment as follows: “A defendant has committed the tort of harassment where he has: (1) engaged in repeated communications, threats, insults, stalking, or other harassing behaviour in person or through other means; (2) that he knew or ought to have known was unwelcome; (3) which impugn the dignity of the plaintiff, would cause a reasonable person to fear for her safety or the safety of her loved ones, or could reasonably cause emotional distress; and (4) caused harm.”
The claims for defamation damages by the plaintiff Alberta Health Services (“AHS”) against the defendant Johnston were dismissed on the basis that an unelected government body does not have the capacity to maintain an action in defamation. “The reason for this is that a significant part of government is conducted through administrative bureaucracy or Crown corporations. To allow what are, in essence, organs of government to sue in defamation would be to allow government to do indirectly what it cannot do directly. Put simply, the fact that government may operate through different ministries, agencies, and corporations does not cloak those bodies with the power to sue in defamation.” On the other hand, the Court ruled that AHS was entitled to a permanent injunction, even though it had no cause of action for defamation, in order to facilitate the performance of public legal duties. “The injunction sought by AHS can be understood to be protecting several different interests: (a) AHS’s ability to fulfill its legal duties to provide public health services …; (b) the right of AHS employees to work free from harassment; and (c) the right of patients and others to safely access AHS facilities”. The injunction granted to AHS directed the defendant to remain 50 metres or more away from the entrances to all hospitals and other AHS facilities frequented by patients seeking medical care and 25 metres or more away from the entrances to all other AHS facilities.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff “$500,000 in compensatory damages for moral injury” plus an injunction requiring Google to ensure that its search results not list any webpages from four specified domains containing the words “A.B.”. The injunction was restricted in geographical scope to all users of the search service offered by Google located in the province of Quebec. The plaintiff had been falsely accused of having been convicted of a crime he did not commit. The accusation was made in a post made by one individual to a website operated by someone else and was spread by a search engine operated by “Google” which would provide a hyperlink to the defamatory post. “The Plaintiff found himself helpless in a surreal and excruciating contemporary online ecosystem as he lived through a dark odyssey to have the Defamatory Post removed from public circulation.” In this ruling, the Quebec Superior Court concluded that “by virtue of its erroneous interpretation of the 2011 Supreme Court of Canada judgment* in relation to the law of another province Google unilaterally decide (sic) to restore the hyperlink to the Defamatory Post to the anguish of the Plaintiff” [*Crookes v Newton, 2011 SCC 47].
The British Columbia Court of Appeal doubled to $120,000 the general damage award made by the trial judge, ruling that the lower court had erred in law “in failing to consider the full scope of the [defendant’s] distribution of the Defamatory Article … and specifically in failing to give any weight to the breadth of circulation of the KMI newsletter.” The KMI newsletter was posted in the online version of Human Resources Magazine Canada. In addition, “KMI included the headline of the defamatory Article in an online newspaper distributed to 32,000 subscribers” along with “a hyperlink to the article that stated ‘READ MORE’”. “KMI circulated a hyperlink to the Defamatory Article by email and through Twitter from at least two accounts, likely in the same format as that contained in the newsletter.” “The trial judge cited Crookes v Newton, 2011 SCC 47 [Crooks] and Malak v Hanna, 2019 BCCA 106 [Malak] in support of the proposition that publication of a hyperlink to a libelous statement does not itself constitute publication of the libel … He concluded in this case that ‘neither the newsletter nor the tweets themselves constitute publication of the libelous statements’, and that ‘[p]ublication is confined to the online version of Human Resources Magazine Canada.”
The Court of Appeal held that “Crookes does not stand for the proposition that a defendant’s conduct in increasing the circulation of their own defamatory publication via transmission of a hyperlink is irrelevant to the assessment of damages.” “The circulation of a defamatory publication to a broader audience, even by way of a hyperlink, may add to the injury to the plaintiff’s reputation, and therefore increase the award of general damages.” “[W]here a plaintiff adduces evidence sufficient to establish that a defamatory publication has been circulated to a broader audience through the use of hyperlinks, such evidence is relevant to the assessment of damages. I do not read Crookes to hold otherwise.”
The second factor influencing the Court of Appeal to increase the general damages award was the trial judge’s reliance on irrelevant factors to mitigate the damages. In this regard, the lower court’s assessment had violated the principle that admissible evidence to show a plaintiff’s bad reputation does not extend to evidence of prior publication of the same or similar libel. An article in a different publication included innuendo about the plaintiff which “mirrored the content of the Defamatory Article.” “It was not open to the trial judge to reduce damages on the basis the [plaintiff’s] reputation was already tarnished by the [prior article in the other publication]”. The fact that the author of the Defamatory Article “had copied content that had already been published elsewhere is not a factor that can properly be taken into account to reduce damages.”
The Alberta Court of King’s Bench awarded defamation damages aggregating $37,500 to a mother and daughter over an online smear campaign which involved posts on various Facebook accounts, YouTube and TikTok. The defamed mother was awarded $15,000 general damages and $15,000 aggravated damages. The daughter was awarded $7,500 general damages.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded $200,000 general damages and $50,000 aggravated damages to the individual plaintiff and his company over a series of negative reviews and complaints which appeared online. The Court stated “[m]any of these posts ended up cross-posted to multiple sites on the internet” and that they “appeared weekly or sometimes daily.” The defendants were ordered to remove the posts and permanently enjoined from publishing any defamatory statements.
The New Brunswick Court of King’s Bench, granting summary judgment, ordered the defendants to pay $50,000 for injury to the reputation and credibility of the plaintiff company plus $50,000 for loss of customers and business opportunities. The expression held to be defamatory was published on Facebook and in the media on the Internet.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered the defendant Arcinas to pay the plaintiff $140,000 defamation damages relating to “unsubstantiated and false claims” made in posts on Instagram. Arcinas had failed to file a defence to the plaintiff’s claims and had earlier been noted in default by the Court Registrar.
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) awarded the plaintiff $20,000 ($10,000 compensatory damages and $10,000 punitive damages) over a defamatory email sent in August, 2019 to an elite, tightly-knit group of people. The Court noted the defendant was entitled to report to interested persons the progress of litigation in the Superior Court of Quebec, but concluded the email content was excessive and disproportionate to the occasion. The fact that the recipients were influential business people in Montreal, coupled with the importance to the plaintiff of his reputation, justified a moderate compensatory award. Punitive damages were warranted by the need to send a message that the defendant’s deliberate conduct was unacceptable and as a warning to others.
In this judgment, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff lawyer further damages aggregating $450,000 plus costs of $24,119.64 over a campaign of very serious internet defamation and harassment which the defendants had started in 2014. [The award consisted of $300,000 general damages, $100,000 aggravated damages and $50,000 punitive damages]. To these sums must be added the award of $41,600 special damages for lost fee income contained in a partial judgment issued previously on October 21, 2021.
Regarding the $300,000 general damages award, the Court noted “the defendants stated themselves that their intent was to cause [the plaintiff] professional and financial loss and to drive him out of business.” “The language used in the defamatory posts is intemperate. This is no dispassionate disagreement on a matter of public interest and debate, but a wholesale personal attack …” “Internet defamation is not some lesser form of defamation. Often awards related to internet defamation have been higher than awards related to publication in other ways, since publications on the internet have continued presence and effect for many months, often years, and these publications are notoriously difficult to remove from the internet entirely.” “This was a systematic and ongoing campaign, and the wearing personal and reputational effect of such a campaign cannot be discounted.”
As concerns the $100,000 award for aggravated damages, the Court held the defendants had been guilty of egregious misconduct. “When put on notice of the plaintiff’s claims, the defendants did not remove the defamatory posts from the internet. They left them up. And they continued their campaign. Then they conducted themselves in the litigation in a manner designed to prolong delay in the litigation.” “The net result , for the plaintiff, has been a feeling of frustration and impotence in the face of an obvious and ongoing civil wrong committed against him.”
The $50,000 award of punitive damages took into account the defendants’ “ongoing abuse of the court’s process bringing and not pursuing motions, refusing to comply with court directions to move forward with the case, willfully refusing to open packages containing court documents served on them in a myriad of ways. All of this was designed to enable the [defendants] to continue unchecked their prolonged campaign of defamation and harassment.”
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff English instructor $75,000 general and aggravated damages plus $10,000 punitive damages over false and defamatory tweets which were seen by thousands of the defendant’s followers. The Court held the defendant “also used the #MeToo hashtag in some of the tweets, which made it more likely they would show up in search results.” The Court stated it was “particularly disturbed by [the defendant’s] repeated publication of [the plaintiff’s] wedding photos alongside her untrue and libellous statements, her use of tagging to disseminate her statements as widely as possible, and her leveraging personal information obtained in confidence from a former friend.”
The Court ordered the defendant to remove any content about the plaintiff on her social media accounts and permanently prohibited the defendant from communicating any further false, defamatory or disparaging statements about the plaintiff. The Court also ordered the defendant to post a retraction on her Twitter account for 60 days, acknowledging that her posts about the plaintiff were false and defamatory, and providing a link to the Court’s decision on the Internet at CanLII. The Court did not order the defendant to publish an apology, noting there was no point forcing the defendant to post a statement “expressing false regret and an insincere acknowledgement of the harm she [the defendant] has inflicted.” “Doing so may do more harm than good, as it could incite [the defendant’s] followers to hurl further invective at [the plaintiff].” “As this whole episode shows, [the plaintiff] should not expect to obtain a rational or compassionate response from the Twitterverse. Her vindication is this judgment and a retraction.”
The Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba awarded the plaintiff medical doctor $25,000 general damages, $10,000 aggravated damages and $10,000 punitive damages over Facebook posts in July, 2020 which constituted serious libels. The Court noted that when other people re-posted the libels, the defendant appeared to encourage it and posted the plaintiff’s Facebook account name so people could contact the plaintiff directly. “I find [the defendant] enjoyed the online banter and mud-slinging of [the plaintiff] by people who followed and engaged in her social media postings. Needless to say, given the knee-jerk and small-minded thinking process of many people jumping onto the fray, most comments were neither considered nor fair.” The Court ordered the defendant to remove the defamatory posts from any social media site under her control including Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded defamation damages aggregating $190,000 to the plaintiffs over false and inflammatory statements on various blogs and websites and in emails containing links to the blog posts. General damages were assessed at $150,000 split equally between the corporate plaintiff and the individual plaintiff, an officer and director of the company. The defendant, who did not show up for the summary trial, had asserted that one of his blogs served “6,000 eyeballs per day” and the Court held there was “an overwhelming body of evidence … that the posts authored [by the defendant] were published on the internet and read by many people.” Each plaintiff was also awarded $5,000 aggravated damages on the basis the defendant was motivated by actual mala fides and also displayed a reckless disregard for the truth. Each plaintiff was also awarded $15,000 punitive damages in order to “deter [the defendant] from engaging in … manipulative, harmful and socially destructive behaviour in the future.” Special costs were also ordered in favour of the plaintiffs, as well as a permanent injunction. The Court also made an order that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case that the defendant had deliberately violated a pre-trial injunction and expressed the hope he would be deterred from further harassing conduct, rendering a final finding of contempt unnecessary.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff life insurance salesperson $75,000 general damages and $25,000 punitive damages over a series of defamatory website articles in the Tamil language. The Court noted that the defendants did not adduce any evidence supporting the substantial truth of the defamatory statements and stated they appeared to be based on speculation by third parties. The Court also held the defendants took no steps to confirm the truth of the defamatory statements, before or after their publication. The defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest was rejected because the defendants were not diligent in trying to verify the defamatory statements. Moreover, the defendants did not seek the plaintiff’s side of the story. Qualified privilege did not apply because of the wide dissemination of the serious libels on the Internet. The Court also found the defendants were reckless as to the truth of the words they published.
The Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench awarded the plaintiff investment advisor defamation damages aggregating $1,659,403 over two CBC television news broadcasts in 2012 plus related articles still posted on the CBC website in May, 2021. The award was broken down into $400,000 general damages; $400,000 aggravated damages; $250,000 punitive damages; and $609,403 for income loss. The trial judge noted that “[t]he CBC has considerable resources and a wide audience as a national broadcaster. It also has a large footprint on the internet through its website.” “It will be something that lives on forever even if the CBC removes the News Stories from its website. Anyone with a web browser will be able to find or stumble across the defamatory expression, and in that sense, [the plaintiff] will never be able to escape the reach of the defamatory expression.”
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench awarded the plaintiff $40,000 general damages and $20,000 aggravated damages over defamatory statements on a live cable broadcast of “The Source with Ezra Levant” on February 25, 2014 which reached a relatively limited audience of several thousand people. The Court found that the “extent and dissemination of the broadcast on the internet was limited.”
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff $500,000 as general and aggravated damages for defamation in relation to “statements … video streamed across the Internet from a newsroom studio at TAG TV and from the [defendants’] family home on various Internet social media and alternative news media.” The Court stated that “[t]he responsibility for the harm caused by the vile and deplorable Internet postings aroused by [the defendant’s] statements and not removed by him rests with [the defendant]. The indeterminate nature of Internet defamatory pollution is an aggravating factor intensifying the indignities, breaches of privacy, and harm caused by [the defendant’s] defamatory statements.” The Court also ordered a sweeping injunction prohibiting the defendant from publishing any statements concerning the plaintiff and not just defamatory statements. The Court explained that the plaintiff is concerned that the defendant does not have the ability to differentiate between non-defamatory statements and defamatory ones or the ability to differentiate between defamatory statements and defamatory statements that are defensible as fair comment or responsible communication. “If I were to only enjoin [the defendant] from making defamatory statements about [the plaintiff], there would just be another run of litigation or contentious contempt motions about whether the comment was defamatory or a fair comment. This is in neither party’s interest.”
The Quebec Court of Appeal, reversing a trial decision in favour of the defendants, ordered them to pay the plaintiff $60,000 defamation damages over a Radio Canada broadcast and website articles published in March, 2013. The Court held that the impugned expression distorted reality and found that the individual defendant created the distorted version of the facts in order to tell a more sensational and interesting story.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded $100,000 general damages for defamation ($50,000 to each of the two individual plaintiffs) over posts by the defendant on Instagram and Twitter. The posts misrepresented the context and content of a brief video involving the plaintiffs, who were fired from their employment and had offers of employment rescinded after the defamatory Instagram and Twitter posts were widely propagated on the Internet as well as in traditional media. The Court held that the defendant was “’relentless’ in her campaign to have the [plaintiffs] fired from their positions.” The Court found the defendant “appeared to take joy in the demise of other human beings” and that her online posts even lead to attempts to ruin the reputation of the plaintiffs’ mother and have the mother fired from her job. “[T]he defendant’s use of her social media accounts gave her tremendous power to harm [the plaintiffs’] reputations. Not only were her posts viewed up to 40,000 times, but the [defendant] increased her followers from 2,000 to 5,000 in a matter of days.” “[The defendant] used a powerful medium to publish her defamatory remarks, she posted personal information, she refused to stop posting and she targeted family members.” The Court ordered the defendant to take down all social media posts regarding the plaintiffs and permanently enjoined the defendant from publishing any defamatory remarks about the plaintiffs.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff $60,000 general damages over a defamatory article published by the defendants in an online magazine. Liability for the publication had previously been determined by the Court in 2021 BCSC 1268. The Court noted that analytic reports suggested the article had received a total of 393 page views and was seen by people in Houston, Sidney, suburbs of Ontario, Montreal, Kansas City and New York. The Court nevertheless concluded that those numbers were not precise and not conclusive about the scope of publication, stating that “the internet can be a particularly dangerous mode of publication for defamatory content.” The Court held that the fact the article appeared in an apparently simple Google search “indicates that it was widely accessible to those conducting searches of the plaintiff’s name, as potential employers might well be expected to do.” “Further, three or four hundred confirmed views based on Google Analytics is not an insignificant number, particularly for a short article that takes little time to read in full.”
The British Columbia Supreme Court, granting judgment following a summary trial, awarded the plaintiff plastic surgeon $30,000 general damages over a defamatory statement posted by a patient on her personal website and on Google Reviews. With respect to the liability defences, the Court concluded: “ While internet postings in the nature of “reviews” of restaurants and services are the norm in today’s world, defamatory comments dressed up as “reviews” that are not factual or do not qualify as fair comment are subject to the laws of defamation.” “ In my view, a reasonable person knowing the proven background facts … could not honestly express the opinions set out in the Posts. Moreover, the Posts contain defamatory statements of fact that cannot be justified.”
The British Columbia Supreme Court, assessing the plaintiffs’ damages following a default judgment on liability issues, made a libel damages award in favour of the plaintiff society and the two individual plaintiffs aggregating $344,720.75. The libels, which the Court found were serious and continued up to the eve of the Court hearing to assess damages, were published by email, YouTube videos, a Change.org petition, and on Facebook. The defendant society and its Executive Director Graham Hughes were held jointly liable to pay: (a) $100,000 general damages and $25,000 aggravated damages to the plaintiff Hewitt; (b)$100,000 general damages and $25,000 aggravated damages to the plaintiff Douglas; (c) $75,000 general damages to the plaintiff society. The Court also ordered the individual defendant Hughes to pay $25,000 punitive damages, to be shared equally by the plaintiff society and the two individual plaintiffs. The defendant Hughes was also ordered to remove all of the defamatory publications from the Internet and enjoined from future defamatory statements.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the defendant Silver Arrows Cars Ltd. (on its counterclaim against the plaintiff) damages of $500,000 for loss of business reputation over defamatory remarks in an email made by the plaintiff Groh to a California auction house. The court found that an auction of a vintage Ferrari was cancelled because of the email. There was no pecuniary loss to Silver Arrows relating to the Ferrari (which it sold to someone else for more money). However, cancellation of the auction compromised Silver Arrow’s long-standing business relationship with a different California company which had supplied Silver Arrow with rare vintage Mercedes roadsters. Cut off from that supplier, Silver Arrow lost the profits it would have earned from reselling the Mercedes roadsters over a five year period.
The New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench awarded $2,000 general damages and $1,000 aggravated damages to the plaintiff, a residential care operator, over a defamatory Facebook post which was automatically shared to all of the defendant’s friends and which prompted 14 comments. The Court also granted a permanent injunction.
The Alberta Court of Appeal sustained a trial judgment which awarded $50,000 to the plaintiff dentist over defamatory allegations in emails, certain website postings and in a newsletter distributed by the defendant to Alberta dentists.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff $20,000 general damages and $10,000 aggravated damages over defamatory allegations made in private text messages to the plaintiff’s business partner and letters critical of the plaintiff sent to the board of directors of an administrative body of which the plaintiff was a member. The Court’s decision to award aggravated damages was influenced by the Court’s findings that despite being served with a cease and desist letter and the filing of this lawsuit, the defendant continued to post things online which were disparaging of the plaintiff.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the defendant Moore damages aggregating $200,000 on her counterclaim against the plaintiff for defamation, invasion of privacy, appropriation of personality and interference with economic relations. The defamatory statements were published on social media, websites and in emails to third parties (one email went to 500 people) The libels were serious and wide-ranging. The award to Moore, which was not broken down between the four causes of action, was made up as follows: $100,000 general damages; $50,000 aggravated damages; and $50,000 punitive damages. The court also granted Moore a permanent injunction because of “a strong likelihood that [the plaintiff] will continue to publish defamatory communications … after judgment.” The plaintiff’s claims against the defendants were dismissed.
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) awarded the plaintiff $1,000 for injury to reputation arising from Facebook posts published in 2018. The Court noted that one of the Facebook pages had more than 60,000 subscribers.
The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed a summary judgment by the Ontario Superior Court in favour of the plaintiff medical doctor over 10 defamatory comments posted on RateMDs.com and two defamatory comments posted on another website. The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge made no palpable and overriding error in finding the defendant was the author of all 12 posts, although the defendant admitted only to posting two of the comments. The Court of Appeal noted that the finding of authorship was grounded in the evidence as follows: “The appellant admitted authorship of the July 31, 2014 posting, yet the July 30 posting was virtually identical. Moreover, the July 30, 2014 posting emanated from the same IP address as the other four postings. In addition, the postings revealed a consistent style and recurring words and phrases that were suggestive of common authorship.”
The Court of Appeal also declined to disturb the conclusion of the motions court judge on the issue of publication of the defamatory expression to at least one person other than the plaintiff; which is a necessary element of the civil wrong of defamation:
The motions judge found that there was evidence of review by at least one other person and he drew an inference of publication from that and other findings of facts, as described in his reasons …” “The motions judge acknowledged that there was no evidence from anyone other than the respondent about the extent to which, if at all, persons other than the respondent or his lawyers had viewed the defamatory postings. However, he determined that an inference of publication could be drawn from the totality of the circumstances, including: a. The comment by an apparent third party on 14 July 2014, referring to Mr. Graham’s earlier posting of 27 November 2013; b. RateMDs.com and similar physician websites are frequently used by the public for the purpose of choosing a physician; c. [the defendant’s] evidence that he authored postings to warn prospective patients about [the plaintiff]; d. [the defendant’s] acknowledgement that he posted the second of the postings that he admits having authored because he found that the first posting had been deleted and was concerned that his message would not be received by the public; and e. The prominence of the RateMDs.com and OntarioDoctor Directory.ca profile in Google searches concerning [the plaintiff].
The Court of Appeal affirmed the motions judge’s award of $25,000 general damages and $25,000 aggravated damages and a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendant from disseminating defamatory content about the plaintiff.
In a unanimous decision, the Quebec Court of Appeal added $400,000 punitive damages to a trial verdict against the RCMP in favour of the plaintiffs arising from a negligent and botched police investigation. The trial judge had awarded $125,000 for loss of income, $21,100 for other pecuniary losses and $150,000 moral damages to plaintiff M; $50,000 moral damages to plaintiff S; and $20,000 moral damages to each of plaintiffs AM, BM, ChM and CeM.
The $400,000 punitive damages added by the Court of Appeal related largely to misleading statements made both in a press release published on the RCMP’s website on May 18, 2007 and at a press conference. The Court of Appeal noted that the press release (and the press conference) was not limited to informing the public about the charges laid against the plaintiffs, explaining the nature of the charges, or providing administrative information. In fact, the press release and press conference purported to provide information about the evidence generated by the police investigation; information which was manifestly false. The Court held that it is not the purpose of a press release or press conference about criminal charges to conduct a trial of the accused in the media. Police gather evidence for the judicial process; not for the news media. If police decide to present evidence to the news media, they may be held liable if they err and make erroneous or, as in this case, false statements.
The Court of Appeal judgment details numerous claims made in the RCMP press release and RCMP press conference which the RCMP knew at the time were “false” and “biased.” The plaintiffs voluntarily exposed themselves to the news media afterwards, but only to repair damage caused by the RCMP. Reports and articles appeared around the world in various languages. Mr. M had to return to the middle east to explain his side of the story on television. The plaintiffs became victims of a media hell (l’enfer mediatique).
The punitive damage award was linked to the dissemination of clearly false information which constitutes an unlawful and intentional interference with the plaintiffs’ right to dignity and inviolability (la faute par les appelants concernant la diffusion d’informations clairement fausses constitue … une atteinte illicite et intentionnellee aux droits a la dignite and l’integrite des M…). Not only did the constables disclose and publish false information, but the information available to the RCMP at the time allowed them to know it was false. Instead of apologizing or issuing an official retraction, the appellants made untenable arguments on the appeal. Police officers are required to be forthright in their public communications. In this case, the police refused to acknowledge their error and apologize.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff company $5000 special damages and $12,000 punitive damages over defamatory posts on private and public Facebook group pages which denigrated the training offered by the plaintiff in micropigmentation. The posts on the private Facebook group (46 members) explicitly named the plaintiff. The posts on the public Facebook page, which had 5,287 members, did not specifically name the plaintiff but contained pointers which identified the plaintiff company and included a copy of a cease and desist letter served by the plaintiff’s lawyers. The Court noted there were 2 shares and 33 comments on the public page. The defendants were commercial competitors. The Court also ordered a permanent injunction and required the defendants to post a retraction and apology on Facebook.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded $10,000 unliquidated damages to the plaintiff landlord over defamatory statements by the defendants (commercial tenants) on Facebook and to a journalist. [Note: The Court also ordered the defendants to pay $79,346.11 representing overdue rent].
The Nova Scotia Supreme Court assessed damages for cyber-bullying under the Intimate Images and Cyber-protection Act, S.N.S. 2017, c. 7 “with guidance from caselaw in related areas of tort law, including defamation and breach of privacy.” The Court had concluded in its decision on liability that the respondent F and the respondent D “had conducted a campaign of cyber-bullying against the applicant [Candelora] in order to intimidate her into dropping [her] legal proceeding” for custody, access and child support. Rejecting the respondents’ submissions that damages should be limited to the level of a quasi-criminal fine ($5,000), the Court held that cyber-bullying should be treated as a tort and awarded $50,000 general damages, $20,000 aggravated damages and $15,000 punitive damages to Candelora. The Court noted “the duration and extent of the cyber-bullying, which was prolific” and that “the respondents’ Facebook postings were public, not limited to a narrower group of individuals, and were tantamount to publication”. “[T]he postings were offensive and designed to intimidate and humiliate” and included “disclosure of sensitive personal facts.” The Court also noted the respondents’ “lack of contrition, and their repeated assertions that they would continue to post defamatory statements until litigation against them ceased.”
The Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench granted summary judgment to the plaintiff for damages aggregating $150,0000 ($50,000 general damages; $50,000 aggravated damages; and $50,000 punitive damages). The plaintiff had obtained an interim injunction precisely a year earlier on June 3, 2019 [2019 MBQB 87) on the basis of the defendant’s admissions that he had published defamatory statements about various members and employees of the College “by way of postings on social media and emails that have been sent to politicians at all levels of government including the Prime Minister’s office, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the ‘RCMP’) and numerous media outlets.” The Court noted that the defendant “published the defamation repeatedly, failed to retract it, insisted he has a defence to the claim, and made no apology for his actions.” “These damage awards relate to both the College’s claims in defamation and in nuisance.”
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered the defendant Lepp to pay the plaintiff Duncan $50,000 general damages, $10,000 aggravated damages and $10,000 punitive damages for a “relentless barrage” of defamatory blog posts, emails and YouTube videos. The Court noted that damage to the plaintiff’s reputation was “made clear by the fact that many people signed [an online] petition circulated by Mr. Lepp and posted negative responses about the [the plaintiff] in response to Mr. Lepp’s posts.”
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff $10,000 punitive damages over defamatory accusations conveyed in an email sent by the defendant to the plaintiff’s suppliers in China. [Note: The judgment also included an award of $220,000 damages for oppression].
The New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench awarded the plaintiff $7,500 general damages over a Facebook post held to be defamatory which appeared on the Internet for one day and did not expressly name the plaintiff. The Court noted that three Facebook “friends” of the defendant had sworn that he or she read the Facebook post and concluded the post was referring to the plaintiff as the “50/50” business partner. The Court also stated that “there is evidence that many of [the plaintiff’s] Facebook friends read the post. Some commented on the post by responding with a Facebook reaction, i.e. an angry face or similar emoji character. Some expressly made comments.”
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff lawyer $5,000 damages over a defamatory posting on Google in July, 2019 which negatively affected the plaintiff’s rating. After noting that a lawyer who appears on the Internet cannot expect to have only positive reviews, the Court held that the defendant had deliberately and in bad faith attacked the lawyer’s reputation by propagating spiteful remarks the defendant knew to be false. The court noted the short duration of the publication (10 days) and concluded the damage quickly faded.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the individual plaintiff H $50,000 general damages and $25,000 aggravated damages arising from multiple allegedly defamatory electronic communications posted by the defendant on Facebook and sent by email and Facebook messenger in 2017. The corporate plaintiff was awarded $25,000 general damages and $500 special damages. [Note: The defendant has appealed this judgment.]
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff $5,000 defamation damages against the defendant for defamatory posts, made under various online identities, on the Canadameet and Ourdream social media sites. The defendant was also awarded defamation damages in the amount of $5,000 against the plaintiff for her posts, also made under various online identities, on the same social media sites. [Note: Modest damages awards were made to each party, against the other party, for breach of privacy.]
The Saskatchewan Queen’s Bench awarded the plaintiff M, a police officer, general damages of $10,000 over a defamatory YouTube video posted on August 7, 2016 followed by a defamatory comment posted in September, 2016 after a take-down demand from M. The Court noted that the YouTube video and comments were removed September 29, 2016, after the video had been viewed 1,387 times. The Court declined to find that the defendant was motivated by actual malice, stating that what the defendant said in his YouTube postings “was a function or product of the mental illness he suffered from.” The impact of the defamatory YouTube postings was also mitigated because the posts expressly stated that the defendant “is mentally ill” and “[t]his statement within the defamatory statements communicates to all viewers or readers that he is mentally ill and, thus, will necessarily operate to inform the readers that the statements made by [the defendant] are to be taken with a very significant degree of skepticism.” Alleged defences of qualified privilege, fair comment and justification in relation to the YouTube postings were rejected by the Court.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the plaintiff from a lower court decision which awarded him only $1 nominal damages. The lawsuit involved ten related articles on the Internet published by the defendant on the “WeChat” social media platform. The trial judge found that only two of the articles contained defamatory statements and for which no defence was available. The Appeal Court ruled that the trial judge erred in finding certain other statements were not in fact defamatory, and that the trial judge erred in drawing adverse inferences about the plaintiff’s credibility and the impact of various statements. The matter was remitted to the lower court to re-assess damages for statements the trial judge found defamatory; assess damages for statements the Appeal Court found defamatory and which the trial judge did not; and determine whether three of the defamatory imputations were protected by a defence.
The Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench awarded the plaintiff dentist damages aggregating $240,000 for defamation through two internet rating websites known as www.ratemds.com [Rate MDs] and Google Review. The two defendants, ex-employees of the plaintiff who made the postings anonymously, were noted in default in the action. The defamatory reviews were posted between March 1, 2017 and April 2018. The plaintiff had dismissed both defendants from their employment at the clinic when he learned they were defaming him. In assessing damages, the Court stated: “The fact that the offending words were posted on the internet, through a specific rating website, is particularly noteworthy. It is a sign of the times that Canadian courts have seen an increasing number of defamation actions pertaining to uncomplimentary and damaging words posted online. This medium is widely accessible and broadens the ability of anyone to publish harmful comments.” The damage award was broken down as follows: $50,000 general damages; $140,000 special damages; $30,000 aggravated damages ($15,000 payable by each defendant); and $20,000 punitive damages ($10,000 payable by each defendant). The two defendants were also ordered to remove all internet postings and “enjoined, restrained and prohibited from posting any other comments, videos, blogs, or the like, which defame, disparage or otherwise damage the reputation of the plaintiff.”
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the three plaintiffs damages aggregating $450,000 against one named and 10 unidentified defendants (John Does 1 to 10) over defamatory statements published on the “Stockhouse.com” website (not named as a defendant). The Court described the website as “aimed at investors in Canada and the US” and having “separate pages relating to each company whose shares trade on public markets in North America.” “The Stockhouse.com webpage for each listed company includes a function called the ‘Bullboard’ which provides an internet chat forum on which users are able to publish self-generated content about the company” and “can do so using pseudonyms to avoid disclosing their true identities.” The Court noted that in this case, each of the defaulting defendants was served at an email address provided to Stockhouse.com or through their private messaging accounts on the Stockhouse.com website. The damage awards were as follows: (a) against the defendant Borovec for four posts; $15,000 general damages to the corporate plaintiff; $25,000 general damages and $15,000 aggravated damages to the plaintiff Dumoulin-White; general damages of $25,000 and $15,000 aggravated damages to the plaintiff Hachev; (b) against John Doe No. 1 for two comments read 61 and 154 times respectively: $10,000 general damages to plaintiff Dumoulin-White; (c) against John Doe No. 2 for 6 comments, one read 185 times, others between 30 and 90 times: $35,000 general damages and $15,000 aggravated damages to Dumoulin-White; $15,000 general damages to the corporate plaintiff; (d) against John Doe No. 3 for two posts read 59 and 123 times: $10,000 to Dumoulin-White and $10,000 to the corporate plaintiff; (e) against John Doe No. 4: one publication read 133 times: $10,000 general damages to Dumoulin-White and $10,000 general damages to the corporate plaintiff; (f) against John Doe No. 5 for four posts read between 73 and 140 times: $25,000 general damages and $15,000 aggravated damages for Dumoulin-White and $15,000 general damages for the corporate plaintiff; (g) against John Doe No. 6: $7,500 general damages, $10,000 aggravated damages and $17,500 punitive damages for the plaintiff Hachev; (h) against John Doe. No. 7, for two posts read 242 times and 156 times respectively: $15,000 general damages for Dumoulin-White; (i) against John Doe No. 8 for five posts read between 59 and 238 times: $35,000 general damages to the corporate plaintiff; (j) against John Doe No. 9 for four posts, read between 150 and 171 times: $25,000 general damages for Dumoulin-White; and (k) against John Doe No. 10 for four posts read between 117 and 118 times: $35,000 general damages for the corporate plaintiff; and $25,000 general damages and $15,000 aggravated damages for the Dumoulin-White. With respect to costs, the Court stated that “the defaulting defendants’ failure to participate in this action makes their conduct all the more abusive. They have caused the plaintiffs to incur substantial sums to ferret out their identities such as they have done and to prove their cases … their cowardice is reprehensible … and they should bear costs on a substantial indemnity basis.”
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted summary judgment for defamatory remarks published on social media by the defendant Abdalla and awarded nominal damages of $1,000 to the corporate plaintiff, which operates a restaurant. The defamatory remarks occurred after a dispute arose between the plaintiffs and the defendant over the former’s sponsorship of a festival. The Court also awarded $8,000 general damages to the plaintiff Yagloui and $6,000 to the plaintiff Yacoub, who owned the plaintiff corporation. The individual defendant posted defamatory comments on Facebook, in a WhatsApp group, and on Twitter. The court noted: “No one who was proferred as a witness on behalf of the plaintiffs felt that the reputation of the individual defendants (sic) had been diminished in their minds. This does not mean the plaintiffs are disentitled to damages, because in defamation actions damages are presumed, but it may demonstrate there is little basis for a significant damages award.” The Court also noted that “the Facebook postings were transitory and were deleted” and the “WhatsApp posting was by and large to a group of 60 people who may be regarded as festival insiders.”
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff, an active member of multiple WeChat groups, defamation damages of $35,000 over dozens of messages posted on WeChat by the defendant from February to May, 2019. Ruling in the plaintiff’s favour on a summary judgment application, the Court stated: “WeChat is a social media platform operated by a Chinese company [which] provides a function called WeChat Group, which allows users to create discussion groups to chat with group members, post images, text, etc. … Information posted in a WeChat Group is viewable and accessible to all group members and can only be deleted by the member who posted the information. … Information or messages posted in one WeChat group can be copied and forwarded to other groups, thus rendering the information potentially accessible to all WeChat users.” In assessing damages, the Court also noted there was no way of knowing how many members of the plaintiff’s group or groups actually read the posts, and no evidence that any of the plaintiff’s friends read the posts or caused additional embarrassment by discussing it with him. Although the Court found the defendant acted with malice, it was “not among the more serious or pronounced forms of malice.” The defendant had not offered an apology, but did not hold “a position of status or public influence that would lend weight to the false statements he has made.” There was no claim for income loss or any evidence of actual reputational harm. “While the defendant’s conduct did not rise to a level warranting punitive damages, it certainly rose to the level of warranting an order for full indemnity costs.”
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff $500 as nominal damages in a default judgment against his nephew over five emails sent to a small number of the plaintiff’s relatives. The Court stated that the emails “were sent in quick succession on three days, and may be appropriately described as insults or rants to which reasonable people would likely give little credence.”
The Yukon Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff $20,000 general damages and $10,000 aggravated damages in a default judgment against the defendant, her former fiancé, for two false Facebook posts following their separation which the Court held were false and defamatory. The Court stated there was no evidence the defendant had apologized or retracted his allegations.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff $15,000 general damages against his ex‐wife over a series of Facebook posts which the Court found conveyed false and defamatory accusations.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff $175,000 general damages, $25,000 aggravated damages and $29,870 (US) special damages for defamatory publications on Instagram and on other websites by an ex‐girlfriend following the termination of their relationship. The Court also granted the plaintiff an injunction. In his reasons, the trial judge stated: “The courts have recognised that the internet can be used as an exceedingly effective tool to harm reputations. This is one such case.”
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench awarded the plaintiff dentist $50,000 general damages for false and defamatory statements published by the defendant dentist in emails, website posts, an e‐book, by fax and orally. The Court rejected pleaded defences of justification (truth) and responsible communication. Although the Court held that several publications occurred on occasions of qualified privilege (namely informal complaints to members of the Executive of the Council of the Dentists’ professional body), that defence was defeated because the defendant was actuated by express malice.
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) awarded the plaintiff, an elected union official, defamation damages totalling $18,000 against four defendants. Broken down, the damages included: $8,500 payable by the defendant Lemay; $7,000 payable by the defendant Sincennes; $2,000 payable by the defendant Daniel; and $500 payable by the defendant Martin. The defamatory statements were made in emails and in posts on the union’s Facebook page and made false accusations impugning the plaintiff’s character and his performance in office.
The Superior Court of Quebec awarded the defendant $12,000 moral damages and $3,000 punitive damages against the plaintiff on a counterclaim concerning false and defamatory posts by the plaintiff on social media which criticized the defendant’s business practices. This ruling noted the evidence disclosed there were 5,496 “visits” to the plaintiff’s social media site and that one defamatory post appeared on a public forum which had huge numbers of visitors.
The Superior Court of Quebec ordered the defendant Lafferriere to pay a total of $12,500 defamation damages to the corporate and individual plaintiffs. Broken down, the judgment amounts were as follows: $4,000 to the plaintiff Fiset for moral damages; $1,000 to the plaintiff Lavoie; $5,000 pecuniary damages to the plaintiff Salon Karo Pro Koiffe; and $2,500 punitive damages jointly to all three plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, who operated a hair salon, were defamed in postings by the defendant on her own Facebook page and on the Salon’s business Facebook page. The defendant also posted a one star review on Google which urged people not to patronize the Salon. This ruling noted that one defamatory comment concerning the plaintiff Fiset had become the object of 466 comments and 108 shares.
The Superior Court of Quebec awarded the plaintiff corporation $7,500 punitive damages against the defendant who had put up a large poster in a strategic location to catch the attention of passersby and cause them to visit a website operated by a third party where defamatory accusations about the plaintiff had been posted. The Court held that the wording on the poster and the website falsely impugned the credibility of the corporation.
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) awarded the plaintiff fitness company damages totaling $3,500 damages for defamatory posts on Facebook which falsely accused the plaintiff of violating consumer legislation. The defendant Pare, on whose Facebook account the posts were published, was ordered to pay $1,000 moral damages and $500 punitive damages. The defendant Renaud, who authored the Facebook posts, was ordered to pay $1,000 moral damages and $1,000 punitive damages. The defendants never retracted or apologized. The Court noted that although words published on social media can be particularly damaging and reprehensible, the plaintiff had not tendered evidence about the number of people who read the posts or their identity. There was no evidence of specific loss to the business.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff comedian $250,000 general damages, $100,000 special damages and $100,000 punitive damages over 17 false and defamatory posts by the defendant comedian which made serious accusations of misconduct against women. The Court noted that posts on social media are shared instantly and remain accessible worldwide. In this case, the Court held that the defamatory posts resulted in the “near total destruction of [the plaintiff’s] career” and a “compromised state of mental health.” The Court also granted a permanent injunction.
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) awarded $1,000 non‐pecuniary defamation damages to the defendant Puribec inc. for its counterclaim arising from an unfavourable review posted by the plaintiffs Blanchet and Lapointe on the “Reviews” section of the defendant’s business Facebook page as well as certain negative comments. The Court held that nine friends or close relatives of the plaintiffs had added unfavorable comments to the same Facebook page although they had never been customers of the defendant. Each plaintiff was also ordered to pay $500 punitive damages.
The Superior Court of Quebec awarded $20,000 moral damages and $10,000 punitive damages to the plaintiff over false and defamatory allegations published in five videos posted to the Internet which attacked the personal history and character of the plaintiff. The Court noted that she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder as a consequence. The Court ordered the defendant to remove the defamatory videos from her Facebook page and other Internet sites where they had been posted and to retract and apologize to the plaintiff on Facebook within 30 days.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded $2.5 million to the plaintiffs for general, aggravated, punitive and special damages. The Court described the defendant as a self‐styled journalist and the owner of FreedomReport.ca, YouTube channels, Twitter accounts, Facebook accounts and other social media accounts and websites. Although the Court award was not broken down into the separate heads of damages mentioned above, a very substantial component of the award appears to be compensation for loss of a substantial contract overseas. The Court characterized the central defamatory accusation as “about as serious and damaging an allegation as can be made in these times.”
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded $20,000 general damages and $7,500 aggravated damages to the individual plaintiff over a series of postings made in 2016 and 2017 by the defendant Hanlon on various social media platforms and internet discussion forums. The individual plaintiff operates a people locating and process serving agency. The defendant Schiele was held jointly liable with the defendant Hanlon for $1,000 of the general damage award. The Court considered that the defamation was serious and falsely impugned the plaintiff’s integrity and ethics. The plaintiff, who suffered humiliation and anxiety, was compelled to change her name and her company’s name and to reorganize her businesses.
In this case, an Ontario Superior Court jury awarded $50,000 damages to the defendant on his counterclaim against the plaintiff for defamation. The trial judge noted that the jury had found 31 instances of defamation by the plaintiff who called into question that integrity of the plaintiff and sought to sully his name by attacks on social media. The Court stated: “Social media attacks on individuals have become all too commonplace in recent years. They are evidently an inexpensive method by which motivated individuals are able to launch distant but personal attacks on others with aplomb and apparent disregard for the consequences … [the plaintiff’s] online campaign against the Defendants serves as an unfortunate example of how communication by social media often deteriorate into irresponsible comment and uncivilized dialogue between individual citizens on matters of public and private interest.”
The Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta awarded damages totaling $500,000 over various defamatory publications on Facebook, Twitter and Internet websites. This award consisted of $100,000 general damages and $40,000 punitive damages to the corporate plaintiffs; $100,000 general damages, $40,000 aggravated damages and $40,000 punitive damages to the individual plaintiff B; and $100,000 general damages; $40,000 aggravated damages; and $40,000 punitive damages to the individual plaintiff M. The Court also ordered an injunction requiring the removal of the defamatory expression from the internet.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded $15,000 moral damages and $10,000 punitive damages to the plaintiff personal trainor against the defendant G over the latter’s defamatory Instagram video posts which made serious allegations of misconduct. The Court held that the defendants “made a concerted effort to ensure the maximum exposure and damage possible to [the plaintiff’s] reputation and career.” Together, the defendants had 65,000 followers on their Instagram accounts. The Court noted the plaintiff relied on social media and in particular Instagram and Facebook to build his own business and to increase his clientele but was unable to identify specific income loss. The defendant G was ordered to retract her statements on her Instagram account.
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) awarded a total of $5,500 to three plaintiffs over false and defamatory allegations by the defendant relating to their conduct regarding a family dog. Although the primary target of the defamatory claims was deceased, the Court held that his surviving family members were entitled to be awarded damages under Quebec law when the false allegations implicated them to some degree.
The Superior Court of Quebec awarded $10,000 damages and $5,000 punitive damages as well as $6,962.32 legal costs to the plaintiff over false and defamatory allegations on the defendant’s Facebook page impugning the plaintiff’s decision to retain a particular employee. The Court found that the defendant had threatened to publish a warning to the plaintiff’s customers via the Internet about the plaintiff’s decision to employ a certain individual. The Court noted that once a post appears on Facebook, it escapes the control of its author. In this case, the Court found that the defamatory post had been shared or liked 2,697 times.
The New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench (Trial Division) ordered the defendant artist to pay the plaintiff, who owned an art gallery, $2,500 general damages for defamation arising from a Facebook post. Thirty-three people “liked” the post; fourteen “shared” the post. The Court noted that “the offending comment was somewhat quickly removed by Facebook as being against their administrative policies.”
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff emergency room doctor $12,500 general damages against the defendant (an emergency room patient) who posted a commentary to the plaintiff’s letter to the editor on a newspaper website. The comments held to be defamatory were posted for approximately 4 days before being removed by the newspaper. The court held, in determining that the commentary was defamatory, that the impugned statements by the defendant were to be “considered in context to all of the overall statements made by the defendant in the online commentary.”
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) awarded $15,000 moral damages to the plaintiff company jointly against the two defendants; one a store owner and the other a business competitor. The plaintiff was also awarded $5,000 punitive damages against the store owner and $2,000 punitive damages against the competitor. The defamatory statements were published on Facebook and falsely impugned the integrity and ethics of the plaintiff. The defendants published defamatory posts, comments and replies on their own Facebook pages. Facebook posts by the store owner were copied in reposted by others elsewhere on the Internet. The plaintiff received accusatory messages from third parties and one client refused to handle the plaintiff’s products.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff non-profit foundation and two individual plaintiffs (the Presidend/CEO and a Director) a total of $45,000 general damages over the defendant’s allegations arising from a dispute over the defendant’s consulting invoices. The Court made a finding that the defendant’s “defamatory communications were published through numerous emails and letters addressed to dozens of prominent individuals in both the public and private sectors.” There had been no retraction or apology. A permanent injunction was also made against the defendant.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Small Claims Court) awarded the plaintiffs, a moving company and its owner, $5,000 defamation damages relating to a website set up by the defendants which remained active as of trial. The defendants’ website displayed photographs taken from the Facebook account of the plaintiff.
The Superior Court of Quebec awarded the plaintiff property management company $10,000 non-pecuniary damages and $5,000 punitive damages over an email letter sent by the defendants (ex-employees) to 15 clients of the plaintiff. The Court found that the email letter was defamatory and designed to draw clients away from the plaintiff.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed a defence appeal and set aside a libel damages award of $140,000 made August 3, 2017: 2017 BCSC 1366.
The Superior Court of Quebec awarded the plaintiff $1,000 moral damages for defamation and $1,000 punitive damages (plus $3,000 for invasion of privacy) against another resident of an 84-unit condominium over allegations made in emails to the condominium board, a board committee, the building manager and certain co-owners.
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a lower court trial judgment [2018 ONSC 101] which awarded $25,000 general damages and $25,000 punitive damages to the defendant relating to her defamation counterclaim against the plaintiff. The plaintiff, who appealed the trial verdict, failed to establish a defence of qualified privilege because the content of his disparaging statements to the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (“IIROC) “clearly exceeded the scope of the duty to report all internal discipline matters or the duty to warn of potential risks that registered individuals may create.”
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) awarded the plaintiff travel agency $1,000 moral damages and $500 punitive damages against a former client over allegations in a Google review. A related claim over a post on the defendant’s Facebook page was rejected on the basis it only appeared for 48 hours and the defendant only had six “friends.”
The Superior Court of Quebec awarded the plaintiff software company $10,000 moral damages and $1,000 punitive damages over an anonymous post on RateMyEmployer.ca. The Court held that the post was defamatory and violated a non-disparagement clause and constituted a breach of contract by the defendant, a former employee.
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench awarded the plaintiff, a former employee of the defendant Saipem Canada Inc., general damages of $50,000 for defamation against the defendant (parent company) Saipem SpA. The defamatory expression was contained in a press release issued by the parent company which was republished in an industry publication and on the website of the Wall Street Journal. Although the Court found that some readers would know the plaintiff was the subject of the defamatory statements, the fact he was not expressly named had an impact on the damages award. “I limit the damages somewhat due to the uncertainty around how many would have been aware that the issues raised in this article were about him.”
The Superior Court of Quebec, assessing defamation damages in default of a defence, awarded the plaintiff $10,000 moral damages and $50,000 pecuniary damages for lost contracts over statements posted by the defendant on social media.
The Ontario Superior Court awarded defamation damages collectively totaling $6,000 to the plaintiff non-profit society, its director R and councillor M, for what the Court held was a campaign of defamation by a disgruntled ex-employee. The statements held to be defamatory were made orally at demonstrations near the plaintiffs’ offices; on placards at those demonstrations; on posters stapled to trees and put on car windshields; in emails and on Twitter. The court awarded the individual plaintiff R $1,000 general damages and $500 punitive damages; the individual plaintiff M $1,000 general damages and $500 punitive damages; and the non-profit society $2,000 general damages and $1,000 punitive damages. A permanent injunction was also granted.
The Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal from 2018 ONCA 80, which dismissed the appeal from the trial judgment of November 30, 2016: 2016 ONSC 5864.
The BC Supreme Court awarded the defendant Jilani $50,000 ($10,000 general damages; $15,000 aggravated damages; $25,000 punitive damages) on her counterclaim for allegations in an article posted on the Internet. The court also awarded the unrepresented defendant (plaintiff by counterclaim) $75,000 for costs.
The New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench (Trial Division) awarded $35,000 in general damages and $10,000 punitive damages to the plaintiff lawyer over defamatory accusations made by the defendant on Facebook. The Court held the accusations were “simply outrageous, scandalous and reprehensible” and said there was “not a shred of evidence” to support them. The plaintiff did not tender any evidence he lost clients or that his business income had decreased because of the defamation. The Court was not told how long the accusations were published or how many times the Facebook posts were shared. The plaintiff did obtain a pre-trial injunction quickly after he became aware of the accusations, and the posts disappeared after a few days. No finding of malice was made against the defendant.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff companies damages at large of $500,000 over what the Court held was “an outrageous and egregious attack on their reputation.” The Court was satisfied that their business suffered financially and that their principals and representatives suffered from abuse, threats, and slanders and hate mongering. Certain allegations were made on CBS Evening News. The Court held that the defendant also sent numerous text and phone messages to people associated with the plaintiffs. [Note: The Court also awarded punitive damages of $500,000 but it is not clear from the judgment whether this award related to the conduct which constituted injury to reputation].
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff Dalila Awada $50,000 moral damages and $10,000 punitive damages over defamatory Internet posts by the defendant blogger relating to the plaintiff’s involvement in the debate over proposed legislation. The defendant, who described himself as a “blogger and citizen,” posted anonymously using various “avatars” on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Certain videos and publications were widely disseminated by third parties. Note: The judgment includes a cogent discussion of the dangers of false news, calling it just as much a threat to democracy as muzzling the press.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded $7,500 non-pecuniary damages and $5,000 punitive damages to the plaintiff, a former politician and lawyer, who was defamed in an email sent by the defendant to various news media, the Quebec Police, a government commission and various other government entities.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal varied the damage award made by the trial judge (2017 BCSC 737) by reducing the general damages from $50,000 to $25,000 and the aggravated damages from $25,000 to $10,000. The Court also varied the costs awarded to the plaintiff by stipulating they should be ordinary costs, not special costs.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff law firm and plaintiff lawyer $1.00 (One Dollar) in damages over a Google Plus review by a disgruntled client which the court found was posted in the heat of the moment, written in poor English, and contained spelling mistakes and poor punctuation. The Court held that if the posting was defamatory, it was “at the lowest end of the scale.”
The B.C. Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff $3,500 general damages against a defendant who posted defamatory statements on the “Ripoff Report” website which the Court stated “is apparently dedicated to providing an opportunity for people to publicize when they have been cheated.” The Court also stated: “I accept that what is published on the internet must be taken seriously for the purposes of assessing a claim for defamation. However, in the specific case of the Ripoff Report … the site itself encourages negative content …this feature of the Ripoff Report makes exchanges on that site more prone to hyperbole and venting…”
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff $300,000 general/aggravated damages and $110,000 punitive damages against the defendant newspaper over articles published in its print editions and on its Internet website. The defamatory statements were also published on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and in an online forum. The Court stated: “The defendants have engaged in a persistent campaign to injury Magno; have ruined his reputation; and have done so with malice. They have refused to apologize and have given no indication that they are prepared to stop their irresponsible defamatory attacks.”
The B.C. Supreme Court awarded $7,500 general damages to the plaintiff over a number of defamatory publications including posts to an Internet message board and on Facebook. “Publishing defamatory allegations on the Internet web has aggravated the harm that the plaintiff has suffered because the allegations do become a permanent visible record in the public domain and cannot be extinguished regardless of the outcome of this legal action.” The Court further stated: “The Internet is impossible to control and the posts will now last forever and cannot be retracted.”
The Superior Court of Quebec ordered that a father pay his son $5,000 damages for injury to reputation in relation to a post on Facebook. The post, which was given limited dissemination to the father’s friends, mocked his son’s academic record, called him among other things the “village idiot,” a “liar,” “profiteer” and “cheat”.
The Court of Appeal for British Columbia varied the damage award made by the trial judge (See below: 2016 BCSC 810 – May 6, 2016) by reducing the aggravated damages from $500,000 to $200,000.
The B.C. Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff damages totalling $115,000 over a dozen internet social media posts published by the female defendant, a bride, concerning wedding services provided by the plaintiff. The publications held to be defamatory appeared on English and Chinese language blogs, forums and social media sites, including Facebook, VanPeople, Weibo (Sina blog), Weixan (WeChat), and Blogger. The award consisted of $75,000 general damages, $15,000 aggravated damages and $25,000 punitive damages.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a November 30, 2016 trial judgment which awarded the plaintiff $200,000 general damages, $200,000 aggravated damages and $300,000 punitive damages in relation to the court’s finding that the plaintiff was subjected to an orchestrated internet defamation campaign.
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed a cross-appeal by the plaintiff to extend the time for pursuing his appeal to the Court of Appeal. The defendants had discontinued their appeal from a dismissal of their counterclaim against Raymond, who was awarded $8,500 defamation damages against the defendant Brauer by the trial judge. The core defamation claims stemmed from internet postings and communications made by the defendant Brauer.
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) awarded the plaintiff $20,000 damages plus $4,416 income loss over false and defamatory allegations by the defendant in several emails, that impacted the plaintiff`s relationship with her colleagues, management, professional association and others.
The Ontario Superior Court awarded the defendant (plaintiff by counterclaim) $25,000 general damages over a document filed on the National Research Database which defamed the plaintiff, and ordered the defendant to file a notice of correction with IRROC.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff moral damages of $10,000 and punitive damages of $5,000 against the defendant over defamatory allegations concerning a confrontation. The defendant’s defamatory statements were published in newspapers, following which they were republished on Facebook and other social media.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the defendant non-profit society (plaintiff by counterclaim) $40,000 damages over a series of defamatory Facebook posts which cause the defendant to incur financial losses.
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) awarded the plaintiff company $1,000 damages and the plaintiff individual $2,500 moral damages over a Facebook post. The defendant was also ordered to pay $300 punitive damages jointly to the plaintiffs.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff non-profit company $10,000 general damages over certain defamatory allegations by the defendants in an article posted on the “Mayorgate” website on January 15, 2014. The defamatory article remained on that website until this judgment was pronounced on November 3, 2017. The Court also granted an injunction requiring removal of the defamatory article. [Note: An appeal has been filed to the Ontario Court of Appeal.]
The Quebec Superior Court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the female defendant Colas (a plaintiff by counterclaim) moral damages of $40,000 and punitive damages of $15,000 over defamatory accusations made in emails, websites, social media including Facebook, and in communications to the news media, in press releases, submissions to the CRTC, and anonymous news articles. The co-defendant Castonguay was awarded $10,000 moral damages and $7,500 over the same defamatory accusations. The plaintiff was also ordered to pay $15,000 jointly to Colas and Castonguay. The Court noted that defamatory publications on the Internet were essentially indelible.
The Northwest Territories Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff $50,000 general damages for defamation as a consequence of defamatory imputations published “to some through electronic means and to others by providing a printed copy of the image accompanied by the spoken word. Publishing electronically allowed the image and the words to be distributed easily to a wide audience … This is borne out in the Facebook ‘chats’ and other activity which ensued.“
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) awarded each of the three plaintiffs $1,500 moral damages and $1,000 punitive damages over a defamatory email sent by the defendant to the City of Quebec, a client of the plaintiffs. The Court noted the defamatory email was given limited dissemination.
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) awarded the plaintiff Gendreau defamation damages of $1,000 and punitive damages of $500 against the individual defendant whocreated the Foundation, over over a Facebook post which was online for only 17 hours and was removed before the plaintiff complained about it. The plaintiff was also awarded $500 defamation damages and $200 punitive damages against the other individual co-defendant and against the Foundation over another Facebook post. With respect to a counterclaim, one of the individual defendants and the Foundation were awarded $4000 defamation damages and $1000 punitive damages against the plaintiffGendreau and another individual plaintiff over a comment posted to the Huffington Post Quebec Facebook page. The Court noted the large circle of diffusion of the Huffington Post Facebook page and the fact that the defamatory post appeared from December 2016 to February 7, 2017.
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench awarded the plaintiff general damages of $50,000 against the Edmonton Police Union over a single defamatory article on its public website which was posted in September 2008.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff, an ex-politician, $125,000 general damages on a counterclaim against The Province newspaper over a defamatory allegation and $15,000 against a blogger who published certain allegations made in an anonymous letter.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff individual general damages of $50,000, aggravated damages of $20,000 and punitive damages of $20,000 over a defamatory post on the Internet. The court noted that “use of the internet allowed the defendant to direct the publication to the 456 people to whom he sent the [defamatory]posting ….” The court also noted that the defendant posted follow up articles on Facebook which generated 4,300 “likes.” “What this points out is that the defendant has used the internet both to deliver defamatory material to specific individuals and more generally to anyone who has cause to read the … Facebook profile. To put it differently [the defendant] has attempted to make comprehensive use of what publication over the internet offers.“
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Small Claims Court) awarded the plaintiff $25,000 general damages over defamatory allegations published in online publications, the defendant’s website and Facebook page. The court stated: “I can take judicial notice of the fact that once information is placed on the World Wide Web, it cannot be withdrawn or removed.“
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff municipal officer moral damages of $15,000 and punitive damages of $2,000 over defamatory allegations made in an email, oral statements and a printed pamphlet delivered to local residents. The Court ordered the defendant to publish its defamation verdict on Facebook.
The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the February 8, 2016 judgment of the Quebec Superior Court which awarded defamation damages of $50,000 to Loto-Quebec et Societe du jeu virtuel du Quebec inc (“SJVQ”).
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) awarded the plaintiff company $3,000 pecuniary damages for loss of profits and the individual plaintiff $500 moral damages and $500 punitive damages over a defamatory Facebook posting by the defendant seen by 1500 people during the period July 31-August 4, 2016.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Divisional Court dismissed an appeal by a libel plaintiff from the quantum of damages awarded by the trial judge, namely $15,000 general damages, $15,000 aggravated damages and $2,000 costs relating to statements made on Facebook and in private emails. See trial verdict at 2015 ONSC 7858.
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) awarded $20,000 compensatory damages and $4,000 punitive damages to the mayor of a large city in Quebec over defamatory allegations published by the defendant in a letter to a local newspaper and on the defendant’s own website. Eventually, over a million people came to learn of these allegations.
The B.C. Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff $50,000 general damages and $25,000 aggravated damages over a post by the defendant to a local news internet website. An appeal from this decision was heard by the BC Court of Appeal on February 26, 2018. Judgment is reserved.
The B.C. Court of Appeal set aside a trial verdict for $50,000 general damages on the basis the trial judge had erred in law in determining defamatory meaning. A new trial is scheduled for the fall of 2018.
The Supreme Court of Yukon awarded the plaintiff $45,000 general damages and $10,000 punitive/aggravated damages over defamatory allegations by the defendant which were published on internet websites and by the mainstream news media.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff $50,000 general damages, $10,000 aggravated damages and $10,000 punitive damages against the defendant in relation to defamatory emails sent to 37 recipients. The plaintiff was also awarded $70,000 general damages, $10,000 aggravated damages and $10,000 punitive damages against the defendant P over other defamatory allegations.
The Quebec Court of Appeal varied a trial verdict pronounced 2015 August 14, by reducing the trial award of $1,800,000 for pecuniary loss to $889,119.
The Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench awarded the plaintiff $50,000 general damages and $50,000 aggravated damages over a number of articles in the defendant newspaper and on the newspaper’s websites.
The Small Claims Court (Cornwall Ontario) awarded the plaintiff $2,000 general damages against the defendants for conspiracy to injure his reputation in relation to Facebook posts. The Court found that the defendants conspired to first lay a complaint with the plaintiff’s professional body, and secondly, to circulate on Facebook the fact that a complaint had been laid and some of the contents of the complaint. The professional regulator eventually dismissed the complaint, which was protected by absolute privilege. The Facebook posts were only protected by qualified privilege, however, which was defeated by the Court’s finding that the defendants were actuated by malice. In this case, unlike a defamation case, the essential element of the proven tort of conspiracy is the agreement and intent to injure. In assessing damages, the Court stated: “The publication lasted days and not weeks. I have no direct evidence whether the blogs were widely read. To some extent they give the impression of bloggers shouting in an echo chamber and they may have been simply preaching to the converted.“
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the trial judgement pronounced November 27, 2014 [2014 ONSC 6890] which awarded the plaintiff $50,000 general damages and $30,000 aggravated damages over nine defamatory posts to an online blog.
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) [Small Claims Court] awarded the defendant $3,000 moral damages over his counterclaim for defamatory statements made in emails and a letter.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff developer $30,000 moral damages against the defendant over false allegations concerning the plaintiff. The impugned statements were made in emails to the plaintiff’s business associates, court pleadings and oral statements. [Note: Under Quebec law, unlike the law in the other provinces, defamatory statements in court pleadings may be actionable in certain circumstances.]
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff accountant $200,000 general damages, $200,000 aggravated damages, and $300,000 punitive damages over a defamatory internet campaign. Liability for defamation damages and punitive damages was admitted by the defendant. No special damages were claimed.
The Court stated that the damage award “must take account of the unique and somewhat insidious nature of internet defamation.” The Court found that the defendant “used fake emails to make it look like there were dozens of people” who were disparaging of the plaintiff. These posts went on for months. When some posts were removed by the site administrator, new ones took their place. The Court also found that the defendant used certain pseudonyms to make it look as if some of the posts were from the plaintiff’s family, friends and business associates. The defendant also sent emails, faked to look like they were from the plaintiff, which encouraged readers to visit the defamatory posts. These were sent to over 200 family, friends and associates. With respect to punitive damages, the Court held that the defendant installed IP-masking software so he could continue the campaign against the plaintiff without being detected. The defendant also eventually destroyed evidence despite court preservation orders.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded $50,000 general damages to the defendant company (on its counterclaim for defamation) over a defamatory statement made by the plaintiff’s principal to Health Canada via email on April 19, 2012 (and to the Competition Bureau) that lead to an investigation into the safety of the defendant’s toy. The Court held that the email made false allegations involving safety and compliance issues.
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) awarded the plaintiff, general manager of a treatment centre, $15,000 moral damages and $10,000 punitive damages against the defendant for defamatory postings on the defendant’s Facebook page and on the Facebook page of a former general manager. The Court held that the Facebook postings made various false allegations concerning the plaintiff.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff $75,000 general damages and $50,000 aggravated damages against the defendant, his daughter, on an assessment of damages over false allegations made in a GoFundMe post. The Court noted that the “defamatory post was open to potentially millions of people. The post could be shared through Facebook, Twitter and email.” The Court also concluded that business partners who conducted background checks were dissuaded by the post from continuing to deal with the plaintiff. The Court also agreed with the plaintiff’s characterization of GoFundMe as “a website that, by its nature and reach, compounds the damage done more than a personal blog or website.“
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff, an application developer and computer software writer, self-described as an expert on transsexualism, the sum of $5,000 general damages over false and defamatory content posted on the Internet by the defendant. The Court held this was one of those cases, however, where the nature of the communication was such that it should not automatically be assumed that it has reached a wide audience
The Ontario Court of Appeal, allowing an appeal from the trial judge, set aside a judgment which found the defendant liable to the plaintiff and instead, awarded the defendant $5,000 on his counterclaim against the plaintiff for defamation. The communications at issue comprised emails, letters and postcards, most of which were sent to family members of the parties. Several emails were sent to the plaintiff by counterclaim’s friend from high school. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an application for leave to appeal on February 2, 2017, [2016] SCCA No. 415.
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) awarded the plaintiff Servant $10,000 moral damages and $5,000 exemplary damages over false allegations posted by the defendant on his personal Facebook page and another local Facebook page. The plaintiff Amed was also awarded $2,500 moral damages.
The Court noted that publication of the defamatory allegations by the defendant, an ex-employee, led to a government investigation (which cleared the plaintiffs) and caused rumours and false allegations which continued to circulate even after the plaintiffs were vindicated by the investigation.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff Senator $150,000 for general and aggravated damages plus $100,000 for punitive damages over an article published in the print and Internet versions of the defendant newspaper which remained online as of trial. The damage award also took into account the fact that the individual defendant posted a false and defamatory email about the plaintiff on her own Facebook page.
The Ontario Superior Court awarded the plaintiff, a former municipal councillor, $30,000 general damages against the defendant municipal councillor over a false and defamatory email she sent to a public citizen and copied to all other councillors, the mayor and to councillors in another district municipality. The Court stated that the general damages awarded “are more than those that might be expected in an award against a private person whose words would likely attract lesser weight.“
The Alberta Court of Queens Bench awarded the plaintiff ex-journalist $150,000 general damages against the individual defendant Martin and the corporate media defendants over an article about the plaintiff’s campaign as a Progressive Conservative candidate in the Alberta Provincial General Election held in March, 2008. The article was published on February 12, 2008 in print editions of the National Post, the Calgary Herald and the Edmonton Journal and also appeared online on various related websites. The plaintiff was also awarded $50,000 general damages for subsequent online publications during the period from July 13, 2010 and November 6, 2012 by the Postmedia defendant in the second, parallel, action.
The B.C. Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff stock promoter $400,000 general damages, $55,000 special damages, $250,000 punitive damages and $500,000 aggravated damages for libel over a number of website articles.
The BC Supreme Court awarded $50,000 general damages and $15,000 punitive damages to the plaintiff teacher over Facebook posts by a neighbour which contained serious and false accusations about the plaintiff. The defendant had more than 2,000 Facebook friends and her privacy settings were set to “Public,” allowing her posts to be viewed by all Facebook users. The defendant was also held to be liable for defamatory comments made by her friends in response to her posts and in a defamatory email by one of her “friends” which copied the contents of one of her posts and was forwarded to a school principal.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the defendant, an ex-fiance of the plaintiff, $6,000 moral damages and $2,000 punitive damages over a defamatory Facebook posting.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded $30,000 compensatory damages and $20,000 punitive damages to the plaintiff over false and defamatory accusations on the website of the defendant corporation including a video message which was also sent by email to 40,000 members of Poker Trail. The defendants also created a number of Internet sites starting in 2014, a Twitter page, and a Facebook page which were hyperlinked to each other. The defendants also published a number of articles on another publicly-accessible website and an open public letter on yet another website which contained defamatory allegations. The Court noted, among other things, that Twitter was even a more rapid way of disseminating defamatory accusations than regular websites or Facebook.
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) awarded the plaintiff, the Director General of a Municipality, $15,000 moral damages and $7,500 punitive damages against the defendant over a defamatory email sent to a press agency. The defamatory allegation subsequently appeared on television, in newspapers, on the Internet and in national, regional and local media. The Court found that all of the defamatory publicity surrounding the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant originated from a second email sent by the defendant to the press agency which was designed to stir up public interest.
The Superior Court of Quebec partially allowed a counterclaim by an ex-employee against his former employer and assessed damages for injury to the ex-employee’s reputation in the amount of $5,000 arising from the employer’s email to a potential client.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff journalist $25,000 moral damages over a defamatory video posted by the Surete du Quebec (Quebec Police) on the force’s website purporting to defend the execution of a search warrant on the journalist’s home.
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) awarded the corporate plaintiff $2,500 moral damages over a defamatory Internet posting which included a YouTube video.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff poodle breeder $40,000 moral damages and $5,000 punitive damages against the defendants over defamatory allegations posted on Facebook and shared with 5,000 friends.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff $15,000 general damages and $15,000 aggravated damages in a default judgment against his nephew over defamatory Facebook postings and defamatory emails to the plaintiff’s daughter.
The Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously sustained a lower court jury award of $42,000 defamation damages ($22,000 general, $7,000 aggravated and $13,000 punitive). The Court of Appeal also affirmed the trial judge’s decision to grant the plaintiff a permanent injunction and substantial indemnity costs against the defendant.
The Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba awarded each of the three plaintiffs $20,000 general damages and $10,000 aggravated damages for defamation on the Internet published by a former student. In addition to defaming the plaintiff teacher and the plaintiff director of the School Division, the defendant was liable for defaming the School Division as an entity, and its administrators and teaching staff. The Court also granted an injunction and ordered the defendant to pay solicitor client costs to the plaintiffs.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Small Claims Court) awarded the plaintiff mayor $25,000 damages (the limit of Small Claims jurisdiction) against the defendant, who had unsuccessfully run against the plaintiff in 2010, over four postings on the defendant’s blog which the defendant started a week after the 2010 election. The postings, which were still on the Internet at the time of trial, were estimated by the defendant to have been seen by 140,000 to 200,000 people. The court considered an award of punitive damages was warranted but could not make the award because of the $25,000 limit on the Small Claims Court’s jurisdiction.
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) awarded the plaintiff $2,000 moral damages and $3,000 punitive damages over defamatory allegations made in an email. The defendant was awarded $1,500 moral damages and $5,000 punitive damages on his counterclaim over defamatory allegations made by the plaintiff in an email.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff transport driver $2,500 moral damages and $2,500 punitive damages for defamation relating to an email and attached video-clip sent by the defendant to the plaintiff’s wife.
The Superior Court of Quebec awarded the plaintiff corporation $50,000 moral damages, $1.8 million for pecuniary loss, and $30,000 punitive damages against the defendant municipality for defamatory accusations contained in a press release on Canada NewsWire which was issued at the same time in March 2001 that the defendant filed a defence to a lawsuit brought by the plaintiff to recover unpaid contract amounts. The web bulletin Quebec-Municipal published the release on its webpage concerning news from the municipalities. A regional newspaper also devoted an article to the allegations. The municipality settled the contract claim in December 2003, paying $1.45 million to the plaintiff, and issued an apology which it distributed in a press release. The court found that the plaintiff had become suspect in the eyes of the community, and lost the confidence of its clients, and suffered a radical reduction in its client base. In other cases, the plaintiff had to offer reduced fees to customers in order to obtain work. The Court held that the importance of reputation to professionals is undeniable, because they need to preserve the confidence of their clients which is essential to the relationship with existing clients as well as developing new clientele.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff human rights lawyer $10,000 general damages over a defamatory article posted by the defendant on the Internet which was not widely read. A message posted by the defendant as a retraction and apology did not mitigate damages.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the defendant from the trial verdict of an Ontario Superior Court jury which had awarded $100,000 general damages and $250,000 aggravated damages. The plaintiff had also been awarded substantial indemnity costs of $444,895 at trial. That award was not disturbed by the Court of Appeal.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, a vice-principal, awarding her $10,000 over defamatory communications sent by the plaintiff, an ex-tenant, in an attempt to have her fired by the School Board. The defendant sent six emails to the School Board with various attachments including a letter, copies of court filings, applications to the Landlord Tenant Board, and the Human Rights Tribunal, as well as a 25 page document summarizing his libels. The Court also granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from publishing any statements or assertions about the plaintiff, whether distributed by the Internet or otherwise, to the School Board.
The Ontario Superior Court set aside a default judgment awarding substantial defamation damages to the plaintiff on November 7, 2012. The Court found that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known that it was taking an advantage that might not be sustained by a court that much prefers that lawsuits be decided on their merits. In any event, the defendants had a plausible explanation and excuse for being in default and they moved promptly to have the default judgment set aside. The Court noted there was enough information before the court to suggest they may have some defences, and may have arguments to challenge causation or harm and the assessment of over $500,000 in damages.
An Ontario Superior Court of Justice jury awarded the individual plaintiff Julie Craven $15,000 general damages plus $5,000 punitive damages and the individual plaintiff John Craven $15,000 general damages and $5,000 punitive damages for defamation. The claims involved “the publication on certain internet sites created, controlled and maintained by Richard Chmura of numerous statements disparaging of Julie Craven and John Craven as well as the posting on YouTube of certain videos containing depictions of and statements about the defendants, accessed through links on Richard Chmura’s websites.” Note: The female plaintiff was also awarded general damages of $10,000 and punitive damages of $10,000 for intrusion upon seclusion. On April 17, 2015, the Court also ordered a permanent injunction against further publication by the defendant and required him to remove the defamatory comments, statements videos and depictions of the plaintiffs from any internet site on which he had posted them, and any links to those sites. See 2015 ONSC 4843.
The Quebec Superior Court made damage awards aggregating $18,000 to two lawyers who represented third parties in litigation relating to the administration of a residential building in a sky resort. The Court awarded $1,000 moral damages and $1,000 punitive damages to each of the two plaintiff lawyers over a blog posting made in January 2011 which remained online at the time of trial. The Court awarded lawyer Poulin $8,000 moral damages and lawyer Lacoursiere $5,000 moral damages over misleading, contradictory and vicious complaints to the Quebec Bar Association made for the purpose of injuring the plaintiffs in their profession. The Court also awarded the plaintiff Poulin $1,000 moral damages in relation to emails and letters sent or copied to other condo owners in the same building, which contained similar defamatory allegations.
The Alberta Court of Appeal affirmed an award of damages to each of five RCMP officer plaintiffs in the amount of $5,000 for general damages and $2,000 for aggravated damages over two online videos which contained false and defamatory allegations. One video had been reposted on www.youtube.com. The video was viewed approximately 5,000 times. A permanent injunction was also granted against the defendants.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the individual plaintiff $30,000 general damages over false allegations made in five Internet postings to Stockwatch. He was also awarded aggravated damages of $10,000 because the defendant, after being stopped from posting under his original alias, adopted a new alias so he could continue his attacks. The corporate plaintiff Focus was also awarded $25,000 general damages.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded $25,000 general damages to the individual defendant on her counterclaim over an email and over oral defamatory allegations made by the defendant by counter-claim, principal of the plaintiff employer, to other employees and other third parties.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff climate scientist $50,000 general damages against the National Post newspaper and three columnists over four defamatory columns published in the print and online editions of the newspaper.
The Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench awarded the plaintiff $20,000 general damages and $10,000 aggravated damages in relation to a defamatory internet newscast and television broadcast in October, 2011.
The New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench awarded the plaintiff $14,000 general damages over a posting on Facebook, illustrated with the plaintiff’s photograph, which constituted a serious libel. The defendant refused the plaintiff’s initial request to remove the post, which remained on her Facebook page for 6 days until the plaintiff retained legal counsel who sent a cease and desist letter.
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) awarded the plaintiff $1,500 moral damages and $500 punitive damages over defamatory postings on Facebook. In assessing damages, the court noted that the defamatory expression had been widely disseminated, because the plaintiff had 400 friends on Facebook. The Court stated that the “defendant should realize that social networks are not a platform where one can say whatever one wants without incurring responsibility.“
The Superior Court of Quebec awarded the plaintiff consulting engineer $5,000 moral damages against the defendant over a defamatory email sent to a group of 400 to 500 people.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff lawyer $50,000 general damages and $30,000 aggravated damages against the defendant lawyer over a series of defamatory blog postings.
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) awarded the plaintiff $1,000 moral damages over defamatory allegations communicated by the defendant in Facebook postings; $1,500 over similar allegations made in emails and letters to the plaintiff’s friends, relatives and employers; and $2,500 punitive damages.
The Superior Court of Quebec awarded the defendant teacher and elementary school principal $10,000 moral damages on his counterclaim for defamation against parents who made defamatory accusations on their Internet website and in communications to teachers and employees of the school, as well as other parents, the School Board and the Ministry of Education.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff boat dealership salesman $30,000 general damages and $10,000 punitive damages over defamatory allegations made in an email to three people at the dealership. A significant factor bearing on the quantum of damages was the Court’s conclusion that the plaintiff had the opportunity of replying and correcting the record, due to the known and limited extent of the e-mail publication and the actions of the plaintiff’s lawyer, whose response “was so immediate that one could infer that it would seep into the subconscious virtually contemporaneously with the defamatory publication.“
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) awarded the plaintiff $1,000 moral damages for defamation over two defamatory emails sent by the individual defendant to other persons in a position of authority with the defendant corporation.
The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed an appeal from a decision of the Small Claims division awarding the plaintiff $7,500 damages for a defamatory email message sent by the defendant to other members of the Board of a housing co-operative.
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) awarded the plaintiff, a band councillor, $10,000 moral damages and $3,000 punitive damages against the defendant over defamatory Facebook postings. Defamatory posters were also pasted to mailboxes and an automobile.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded general damages aggregating $300,000 and punitive damages totalling $50,000 to two plaintiffs, medical doctors, over defamatory postings to the Internet by the individual defendant P in 2010.
An Ontario Superior Court of Justice jury awarded the plaintiff $100,000 general damages and $250,000 aggravated damages over false allegations in blog posts on the Internet in 2011.
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench awarded three plaintiffs defamation damages aggregating $145,000 over a series of emails sent to CEO and the general counsel of a leading patent brokerage firm in the USA and other to a City and to police.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff $50,000 general damages, $25,000 aggravated damages, and $10,000 punitive damages over defamatory statements posted to a webpage controlled by Delazzari (who was deceased at the time of this litigation). The libels remained on the Internet for approximately seven years and the defamatory website was only taken down after Delazzari passed away. The Court noted that “(p)otential customers who tried to access the plaintiff’s websites were automatically directed to one of [the defendant’s] websites” where the libels were published, and that the plaintiff’s business went into a “tail spin.” The Court held that the defamatory attack was a “‘deliberate and malicious act … done for the sole purpose of ruining the plaintiff’s reputation and business’ by employing ‘one of most powerful tools of communication ever invented … a medium of virtually limitless international defamation’ (See Barrick Gold Corp. v Lopehandia et al 2004, 71 O.R. (3d) 416 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 62).”
The New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench awarded the plaintiff, a former nursing home administrator, $50,000 general damages and $20,000 punitive damages over allegations in an email letter sent to the board of directors of the nursing home.
The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, noting this is the second round of litigation between the same parties, awarded $35,000 general damages to the corporate plaintiff. Each of the two individual plaintiffs was awarded $50,000 general damages, $30,000 aggravated damages and $25,000 punitive damages. The libels were published on the Internet, notwithstanding the permanent injunction granted by the Court on February 1, 2012 which prohibited the defendant from “dissemination, posting on the Internet, distributing or publishing in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, statements or comments about Trout Point Lodge [or the individual plaintiffs … including] statements or comments which refer to the three plaintiffs by name, depiction or description.” [Note: In addition, the Court awarded statutory damages of $80,000 and punitive damages of $100,000 for the defendant’s breach of the plaintiffs’ copyright in four photographs arising from their publication on the Internet by the defendant for commercial purposes.]
The Ontario Superior Court dismissed an application by the defendant to set aside a default judgment for libel damages over a series of serious defamatory posts on Stockhouse.com relating to the plaintiff CEO of a publicly-traded company. The default judgment was granted on January 7, 2013 for $200,000 damages, $3,500 costs and a permanent injunction. The Court agreed, however, to hear submissions from the parties whether the $200,000 award was excessive and should be varied, as it appeared that the default judgment was based on an erroneous finding by the Court that the defamatory posts involved 500,000 “hits” although the evidence tendered by the plaintiff was that the hits on the defamatory posts totalled in the thousands, not hundreds of thousands. In refusing to set aside the default judgment, the Court noted that the defendant’s evidence would not support a proposed defence of truth or fair comment; there had been no retraction or apology; the defendant had continued his campaign of defamation despite an interlocutory injunction; and the prejudice that would be caused to the plaintiff by re-opening the judgment would be significant.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded $5,000 moral damages and $5,000 punitive damages to the plaintiff over defamatory postings on the defendant’s website. The Court also ordered the defendant to remove each defamatory article from his website and enjoined the defendant from publishing, in any manner, any defamatory comments, articles or messages identical to those previously published.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff $5,000 damages over a defamatory comment on the defendant’s Facebook page.
The British Columbia Supreme Court, assessing defamation damages following judgment in default of defence, awarded the male plaintiff a total of $35,000 general and punitive damages over an internet article which, on the evidence, was published on a single occasion and then removed by the website operator after only 9 days. The Court stated: “While the limited publication might not warrant the damages of $35,000 sought by the plaintiffs, I am satisfied that the sum is reasonable given the lack of any justification for the allegations in the article, and the mala fides that I find motivated the defendant in his conduct in question.” The Court also awarded the plaintiff special costs.
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench awarded the plaintiff cleric $75,000 general damages and $50,000 aggravated damages against the defendant, a foreign lawyer, over false and defamatory allegations of serious misconduct in the foreign jurisdiction. The false allegations were made in blog postings and articles posted on the Internet as well as emails sent to the plaintiff’s new employer and colleagues in Alberta. The defendant had refused to retract and apologize. The Court noted that “posting the defamatory statements on the Internet …created the potential for ridicule and scorn by countless people who do not know the plaintiff.” The Court also granted the plaintiff an injunction prohibiting the defendant from publishing any further defamatory statements concerning the plaintiff and directing “[a]ny third parties, including any Internet service provider or site, who have published, posted or distributed or who have otherwise repeated the defamatory comments … to assist the Plaintiff and this Honourable Court in the enforcement of this injunction, including the removal of any defamatory comments about the Plaintiff from the Internet and any other form of publication or distribution …[including] any website, social media site, blog, usernet news groups, chat site, email or any other electronic means.“
The Northwest Territories Supreme Court awarded $100,000 general damages and $61,843.86 special damages to the former temporary Chief Operating Officer (“COO”) of a First Nations tribal council over defamatory allegations in a letter sent by the defendants, former employees of the tribal council, to approximately 30 people. The Court noted that the letter “was transmitted by electronic mail and as such it could be published to an even wider audience with relative ease. In choosing to use electronic distribution, the defendants created a significant risk of further publication beyond the intended recipients. Indeed, it wound up in the hands of both print and broadcast media outlets, both of which disseminated the allegations amongst an even larger audience.”
The plaintiff was awarded a total of $42,000 damages against all defendants by a jury which heard this Ontario Superior Court of Justice defamation lawsuit over 40 postings on a website. The award included $ $15,000 general damages, $9,000 aggravated damages and $18,000 punitive damages, from which the Court inferred that the “jury found that the defendants acted in a manner that was highhanded and oppressive towards the plaintiff.” [See 2014 ONSC 412].
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff $125,000 general damages over serious defamatory statements contained in emails sent by certain relatives to other members of a large family and close-knit community.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff, the owner of Montreal’s La Presse newspaper, defamation damages of $10,000 over a June 2011 article published in Le Journal de Montreal, a Sun Media newspaper, and on websites operated by the defendant Canoë Inc., which made disparaging allegations about the plaintiff’s relationship with Radio-Canada. The Court ordered that: the article be removed from www.canoe.ca; that the defendants publish a retraction in Le Journal de Montreal; and that Canoë Inc. post a link to the retraction on its home page for 48 hours and thereafter maintain that link on its website for 2 years. The Court rejected defence arguments that the lawsuit was brought to suppress freedom of expression.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff ex-mayor $5,000 general damages over defamatory allegations voiced by the defendant during an eve-of-election interview which was posted to a local website. In assessing damages, the Court noted that the plaintiff’s primary purpose in bringing the action was to vindicate her reputation and that she had already obtained significant settlements in connection with her defamation claims against others.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal set aside the trial judge’s finding that the defendant was protected by the defence of fair comment and awarded the plaintiff $25,000 general damages and $50,000 punitive damages over defamatory comments contained in: (i) a January 2011 press release which was also published on the defendant’s website; and (ii) other publications on the defendant’s website. The Court of Appeal also awarded the plaintiff special costs (close to full indemnity) of the trial in BC Supreme Court, party-party costs of the appeal hearing (partial indemnity), and a permanent injunction.
The Ontario Superior Court awarded the plaintiff $12,000 general damages and $5,000 punitive damages against the individual defendant Song over an article which was published in Dongpo News, a South Korean on-line and printed newspaper.
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench awarded a grand total of $600,000 to two individual plaintiffs in two separate but related lawsuits against private investigators who sold certain allegedly defamatory information to third parties who were seeking a basis to sue the plaintiffs. The third parties published the allegedly defamatory information in a statement of claim filed in court, which was then the subject of a report in a daily newspaper. The allegedly defamatory information was also published by the defendants on their website. The Court awarded each of the two plaintiffs a total of $100,000 general damages for defamation in each of the two actions; general damages therefore totaled $400,000. The court also awarded each plaintiff $50,000 punitive damages in each of the two actions; punitive damages therefore totaled $200,000. The grand total awarded in this case is $600,000.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff architect $25,000 moral damages and $10,000 punitive damages over three articles published in December 2007 and February and December 2011 on the internet website of the Syndicate des Professeurs et des Professeures de l’University du Quebec a Montreal (the “SPUQ”) which contained allegations held to be false and defamatory. The Court also ordered the defendants to cease further publication, remove the three articles, withdraw all prior consent given to third parties to republish the articles, and to take all necessary measures to definitively eliminate every trace of the articles from every internet site on which they continue to appear.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the corporate plaintiff $1,000 general damages against the ex-employee defendant over a letter he sent in March 2011 to four construction companies and three government agencies which the Court held was defamatory. In arriving at this modest figure, the court noted, among other things, that any harm to the plaintiff’s reputation resulted from publication of other allegations in the letter which the Court held were true. The Court held that the defendant’s false statement did not seriously affect the employer’s reputation or standing in the community
The Superior Court of Quebec awarded the corporate and individual plaintiffs each $3,000 over defamatory words published by the defendant Croghan on an English-language blog relating to Brome Lake, Quebec. The Court also ordered the removal of the blog item at issue.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff, the director of a veterinary teaching hospital, was entitled to $100,000 general damages over defamatory statements made by the defendant union in: (i) notices posted on the eight hospital bulletin boards accessible to the public; (ii) an article in the defendant union’s newsletter which was mailed to 1400 members; and (iii) an article published in a Mini Bulletin on the union’s website. The article was not removed from the website until the plaintiff filed his lawsuit. The Court noted that the union website was open to the public “without any access code protections or other privacy protections.” The Court of Appeal held that it was “irrelevant that [the plaintiff] did not present any evidence to the Court to prove that anyone did in fact search the internet to find the communication.”
aggravated damages and $50,000 punitive damages against a “John Doe” defendant who had “waged an anonymous electronic campaign of libel.” The “John Doe” defendant had failed to comply with an earlier Court Order requiring him or her to identify themselves. The Court noted:
“There are few things more cowardly and insidious than an anonymous blogger who posts spiteful and defamatory comments about a reputable member of the public and then hides behind the electronic curtain provided by the Internet. The Defendant confuses freedom of speech with freedom of defamation. There are undoubtedly, legitimate anonymous Internet post; persons critical of autocratic or repressive regimes, for example, or legitimate whistleblowers. The Defendant is not one of those people. The law will afford his posts all the protection that they deserve, which is to say none.”
The Court noted that the defendant’s “malevolent refusal to comply with [the earlier Court Order requiring the defendant to identify himself/herself] only adds to the case for punitive damages.”
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff, a First Nations artist, the sum of $35,000 for general damages over an article which appeared on the website of the defendant’s newspaper. The article, which was incorrectly illustrated with the plaintiff’s photograph, concerned the criminal conviction of a different person who had the same name.
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) awarded $100 to the plaintiff corporation (6231829 Canada inc.), $3,000 to the plaintiff businessman Blondin and $3,000 to the plaintiff businessman Genereux over a defamatory Internet publication by the defendant, a French immigrant to Quebec and an email which linked to that posting. The defamatory posting was accessible for approximately six months. Each of the three plaintiffs was also awarded $1,500 punitive damages.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the corporate plaintiff $425,000 general damages and $75,000 punitive damages against the corporate defendant, a terminated ex-franchisee, and against the individual defendants (husband and wife) in relation to a campaign of defamatory statements made to “a broad and varied audience that was carefully selected to maximize the harm to New York Fries’ reputation.”
The statements held to be defamatory were made in emails, a complaint to police, a letter and to a reporter for the Financial Times (who republished them in an article). The defamatory statements falsely alleged that the plaintiff had breached its franchise agreements with the defendants and other franchisees, unlawful terminated the defendants’ franchises and was guilty of other misconduct including breaches of federal, provincial and municipal legislation.
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) awarded each of the two defendants (who were plaintiffs by counterclaim) the sum of $5,000 compensatory damages and $5,000 punitive damages over false and defamatory reports by the plaintiff to child protection authorities. The Court held that the plaintiff, who was the mother of the defendant C.B., the mother-in-law of the defendant S.S., and the grand-parent of certain children, made the defamatory complaints maliciously. The children were seized temporarily by the child protection authorities. The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant S.S. over a Facebook posting that described the trauma the defendant was experiencing as a result of the defamatory statements to the child protection authorities.
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) awarded the plaintiff teacher $5,000 moral damages plus $5,000 punitive damages over a series of 9 emails by a parent which made falsely and serious defamatory allegations about the teacher’s conduct.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff, a former federal Cabinet Minister and co-founder of the Bloc Quebecois party, $22,000 moral damages for defamatory statements contained in a posting which appeared on a third party’s Facebook page. The defendant, a senior official with a major media organization, removed the posting after four days. The Court noted there was no evidence at trial that the posting had gone viral or that it had been republished in other social media.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff $30,000 compensatory damages and $15,000 punitive damages over defamatory postings on blogs over a period of five years. The Court also ordered the defendant to remove all of the defamatory material from the Internet and to sign and deliver a letter of retraction which specifically withdraws the defamatory accusations, undertakes not to defame the plaintiff in the future, and authorizes the plaintiff to publish the retraction as he sees fit.
The Court noted that [rough translation to English from French]. “the Web has become the most powerful and frequently used medium of communication on earth. It permits wars to be halted quickly, criminals to be quickly captured. Teaching has no limit. Communication can be personal as well as impersonal. The Web can make anyone a celebrity in a few minutes. It can tarnish or destroy a reputation with one click. Use of the Web, of its sites and its blogs varies according to the category of users, their ages, their sex, their religion etc.”
On the evidence before the Court, it appeared that the plaintiff’s employment prospects were prejudiced by the defamatory postings. The plaintiff testified that his employer hired him on the condition that he clear his name and that for several years he had to maintain a “low profile” because of the defamatory postings of the defendant.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded $20,000 moral damages and $25,000 punitive damages to husband and wife plaintiffs over a “successful and vicious campaign” of emails to friends and acquaintances of the plaintiffs “with a stated goal of destroying their reputation.” The Court rejected defence arguments that the defendant’s “slanderous, cruel and vengeful” comments should qualified as “gossip” with which the Court should not interfere. The Court held the comments were a “clear illustration of an abuse of right and the exercise in bad faith” of the right to freedom of expression. In the opinion of the Court, “the exceptional circumstances of this case justify the issuance of a permanent order that will enjoin [the defendant] not to communicate directly or indirectly in writing with the [plaintiffs] or to third parties regarding the [plaintiffs’] private life, their assets and property or their financial situation.” “This is one of those rare cases, where such an extensive prohibition is warranted and can be reasonably justified.”
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Small Claims Court) awarded the plaintiff dentist $22,000 general damages against a former patient over defamatory emails and internet postings on YouTube and the website of the Association of Dentists which the Court held were part of a “deliberate campaign to harass [the plaintiff] and smear him in the eyes of a variety of parties associated with the practice of his profession.” The duration of this campaign was almost two years and commenced six years after the defendant was his patient for a brief time in 2004 and after her complaint to the Royal College of Dental Surgeons was dismissed. The Court would have assessed the plaintiff’s general damages at $45,000 except for the fact his formal claim only sought $22,000.
The plaintiff financial consultant was awarded nominal damages and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from publishing, on the internet or by any other method or medium, whether by name, pseudonym, address, photograph or other means of identity, any defamatory statement referring in any way to the plaintiff. The defamatory statement was contained in an email sent by the plaintiff’s ex-spouse to a Swiss journalist. Although the nature of the defamation was serious, it was sent to only one person and the conduct of the defendant was complicated by other factors.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded general damages of $15,000 to the corporate plaintiff, which operated a furniture store for defamatory statements made in an email sent by the defendant from work to a circle of friends and colleagues (38 people) on September 2, 2010 asking that they forward it to others. The Court held that “[w]hile limited companies are entitled to damages for libel, in practice in the absence of proof of special damages, or of a general loss of business, generally the monetary amounts are somewhat lower than for defendants who are not corporations.”
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff (one of the shareholders of Group Alta) $500 moral damages against the defendant Grenier over defamatory emails sent to five other shareholders of Group Alta. The plaintiff was awarded $10,000 moral damages against the defendant Levesque over defamatory words spoken to a group of employees and for instigating a public demonstration by employees of Group Alta which targeted the plaintiff and was reported in the news media. Levesque was also ordered to pay $1,000 punitive damages. Grenier was also ordered to pay $100 punitive damages.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff Bouffard compensatory damages of $4,000 and punitive damages of $3,000 and the plaintiff Leduc compensatory damages of $1,000 and punitive damages of $2,000 over defamatory publications on Facebook and in an email. The Facebook postings, which concerned automobile repairs carried out by the plaintiffs, were removed after only two days.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff businessman $20,000 general damages over emails and letters impugning his business ethics and practices which were sent to his friends, family members, neighbours, business associates, investors and spouse. The Court noted that the “mode and extent of the publication are relatively limited on the evidence.”
The Quebec Court (Civil Chamber) awarded the plaintiff journalist $2,000 moral damages over an anonymous email sent by the defendant to one client of the plaintiff (and possibly other persons) attaching a defamatory article which had been published years earlier and had been the subject of previous legal proceedings by the plaintiff in the Quebec Superior Court against the defendant.
The Nova Scotia Supreme Court awarded defamation damages totalling $425,000 to the corporate plaintiff and two individual plaintiffs over blog postings on the Internet by a Mississippi resident. The defendant did not participate in the court hearing for the assessment of damages following a judgment in default of defence. The corporate plaintiff was awarded $75,000 general damages. Each of the two individual plaintiffs was awarded $100,000 general damages; $50,000 aggravated damages; and $25,000 punitive damages. The Court also granted the plaintiffs a permanent injunction , stating that the conduct of the defendant “became stronger and more malicious and derogatory as the action was commenced and as it proceeded to this assessment of damages. There has been no retraction or apology but a continued campaign of defamation.”
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the 70-year-old plaintiff municipal councillor the sum of $5,000 for moral damages plus $5,000 for punitive damages over defamatory statements published on a political adversary’s Internet blogs. The Court noted that although the defamatory words were serious, the plaintiff had not lost the esteem of the voters who re-elected him despite the defamation. The Court noted that the defendant’s blog had 833 visitors over several years. The defendant was also ordered to remove the defamatory statements from his blogs and prohibited from making the allegations again in the future.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff mineral exploration and development company general damages of $40,000 over defamatory postings made under the pseudonym “Stonecut” on the Stockhouse website. The assessment of damages was made pursuant to a consent order requiring the defendant to pay damages to be assessed after the defendant withdrew his statement of defence. The Court found that the defendant had an improper motive for publishing the postings on a website intended for the investing community. “He made the decision to publish on the Stockhouse website presumably because he knew that the audience would include investors, and potential investors … Targeting this audience ensured that the damages inflicted would be substantial.”
The Ontario Superior Court awarded the plaintiff $50,000 general damages, $25,000 aggravated damages and a permanent injunction against the defendant Dongpo News on an assessment of damages following a default judgment against that defendant. See paragraph 2 of 2013 ONSC 4426.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff sprinkler system designer $14,750 general damages over a defamatory email sent by the defendant to a customer of the plaintiff. The Court held that because the email was sent only to a specific individual on a single occasion, this weighed in favour of a lower award. Significantly, the plaintiff had failed to claim damages for actual monetary loss. The Court stated that “[t]his is unfortunate because there was evidence in the trial that was capable of demonstrating specific losses arising from [the email recipient’s] decision to stop referring meaningful design work to [the plaintiff].” In arriving at the figure of $14,750, the Court reduced damages by “the nominal amount of $250 in light of the unspecified offer of a retraction.”
An Ontario Superior Court of Justice jury awarded damages totalling $650,000 to the plaintiff, a prominent businessman, over various defamatory publications by the defendant, a shareholder activist and former newspaper publisher. The defamatory publications included letters to the Ontario Securities Commission, newspapers, emails and blog postings. Many of the publications complained of were webcast. The award consisted of $250,000 general damages and $400,000 aggravated damages.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff, a professional engineer and businessman, general damages of $15,000 against the defendant alderman over an email message copied to the mayor and all other municipal councillors. The email described the plaintiff as a “destructive mean spirited irrational liar that does not deserve the time of day.” The plaintiff acknowledged at trial the email did not appear to have affected his reputation. The defendant apologized for his statement in an email to the mayor and council. The Court held that the damages would have been considerably higher but for the apology.
The Ontario Small Claims Court awarded the plaintiff $10,000 damages (the maximum in Small Claims) over defamatory accusations about his conduct as coach of a peewee baseball team. The defamatory accusations were contained in an email sent by the defendant parent to other parents and to officials. The email was also posted on the defendant’s website. The court held the email was part of a “campaign of character assassination” to have the plaintiff removed as coach. He did in fact resign. The Court said it would have awarded a larger sum, including aggravated damages, if monetary jurisdiction had been higher.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded $50,000 general damages for defamation to the plaintiff corporation and its principal against the two defendants who live in New Jersey. In addition, the Court held that punitive damages of $25,000 were warranted (provided the plaintiffs abandoned an unspecified claim for actual financial loss). The defendants, who did not defend this action, were found to be responsible beginning in 2006 and continuing to date of judgment for “profuse posting on Internet bulletin boards and websites” which frequently defamed the plaintiffs, causing them to lose clients and opportunities for new clients. The Court also granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disseminating, posting on the Internet or publishing further defamatory statements concerning the plaintiffs.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff $5,000 moral damages and $5,000 punitive damages over defamatory statements about the plaintiff’s computer repair business which were posted on websites where the plaintiff advertised his own services.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff lawyer $50,000 general damages over malicious and false allegations published in local community and shopping newspapers as well as on the website of the National Coalition for Law Societies Reform and on a related website, Dirty Lawyer Registry Ontario. The Court found that “individual fragments of the advertisement arguably had some basis in fact, but they were expressed and juxtaposed in a manner [the court found] to be inconsistent with the truth.” Damages were aggravated by a number of factors, including the dissemination of additional material on websites accessible through the internet. “The internet postings continued to be available for viewing to the time of trial. The wide circulation of defamatory statements through the internet has been recognized as a potential aggravating factor in libel cases …” The Court also granted a permanent injunction requiring any statements relating to the plaintiff to be removed from the websites.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded moral damages of $12,500 and punitive damages of $5,000 to the plaintiff mayor Dore over false insinuations during the 2006 municipal election that he had a criminal record and over false allegations of fraud and theft made at a municipal council meeting and to the press. The plaintiff councillor Bernard was given the same damage awards over the same allegations plus a false insinuation that he was in a conflict of interest. A local newspaper published the gist of the false allegations in hard copy and on its Internet site.
The Ontario Superior Court awarded the plaintiff high school teacher $20,000 general damages plus $7,500 aggravated damages over false allegations posted by a parent on a password-protected website.
The Ontario Superior Court awarded the plaintiff , a lawyer for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, $25,000 general damages against the defendant lawyer/journalist/political commentator over blog postings which contained false allegations about the plaintiff’s conduct before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. The Court noted that the amount of damages awarded was lessened by several mitigating factors, including the effect of a correction published by the defendant and the absence of specific evidence from the plaintiff concerning personal suffering as a result of the libels.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the defendant business woman Neufeld (plaintiff by counterclaim) general damages of $40,000 for the defamation and breach of privacy claims made in her counterclaim against her husband Nesbitt, a family physician. The award related, among other things, to a defamatory email sent by the husband to the Rotary Club, a website specifically targeting the Neufeld, and a Facebook page. The Court stated that it “limit[ed] the defamation damages due to the fact that while it is plainly publication to the world in the sense the defamatory material was put on the Internet, Ms. Neufeld indicated there has been little personal or professional backlash.”
The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the trial verdict which awarded the plaintiff Abou-Khalil the sum of $100,000 moral damages and $25,000 punitive damages for defamation. See 14 May 2008, 2008 QCCS 1921, below.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the defendant from the trial judge’s verdict on March 27, 2009 awarding the plaintiff $30,000 general damages for defamatory articles published in a University student newspaper both in its hard-copy and online edition.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded $9,000 moral damages to the female plaintiff and $3,000 moral damages to the male plaintiff. The Court also awarded $3,000 punitive damages to the female plaintiff and $1,000 punitive damages to the male plaintiff. The defamation arose from harassment by the defendant or his ex-girlfriend by emails, including anonymous emails.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a September 17, 2009 trial verdict in favour of the plaintiff Buckle. See 2009 SKQB 363. The trial verdict of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench awarded a senior Crown prosecutor libel damages of $50,000 over statements published by the defendant on a blog on the Internet which made false, serious allegations of misconduct. The defendant refused to apologize. The Court also granted an injunction compelling the defendant to remove all Internet postings concerning the plaintiff.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the May 25, 2009 trial judgment which included an award to the plaintiff of $100,000 for defamatory statements in emails circulated by the defendants which falsely alleged that the plaintiff had lied, lacked integrity, was not trustworthy and was lacking in management skills.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded each of the three plaintiffs general damages of $25,000 and aggravated damages of $10,000 over false and defamatory statements alleging improper and criminal behaviour which were circulated widely via email to the plaintiffs’ work colleagues and supervisors, media outlets, politicians, civil servants, and others. In addition, the defendant posted defamatory statements on a local newspaper website.
The Superior Court of Quebec awarded the plaintiff lawyer $50,000 moral damages and $50,000 punitive damages over allegations published on a blog by the defendant Martineau who used an internet portal operated by Canoe.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff $1,000 nominal damages for defamation over an email sent by her supervisor to an individual who had no reciprocal duty to receive the supervisor’s email report.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a judgment pronounced October 16, 2009 awarding the plaintiff damages for libels published on a personal website and posted on several third party websites.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal awarded the plaintiff, a resident of Salt Spring Island and a member of the Salt Spring Island Tennis Association, the sum of $3000 over disparaging statements contained in an email sent by the defendant to a members of the Salt Spring Island Parks and Recreation Commission, the Capital Regional District and 100 members of the Salt Spring Island Tennis Association. The Court of Appeal stated that a wholly nominal award would not be sufficient and that a “proper damages award” was necessary both to vindicate reputation and as consolation for his hurt feelings.
The British Columbia Supreme Court each of the two plaintiff companies $75,000 general damages. The individual plaintiff was awarded $125,000 general damages plus $75,000 aggravated damages. Each of the three plaintiffs was also awarded $25,000 punitive damages to deter further defamatory statements. The defendant had authored numerous postings on an internet website falsely alleging illegal activities on the part of the plaintiffs, including allegations of fraud, theft, stock manipulation, and fraud on the court. A permanent injunction was also granted.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff bank the sum of $20,000 as punitive damages in relation to defamatory postings by the defendant on the website of Stockgroup Media Inc. on message boards referred to as “Bullboards.” The bank did not seek compensatory damages. The primary relief sought and obtained by the bank was an injunction restraining the defendant from publishing in any media any comment of a defamatory nature concerning the plaintiff bank.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the female plaintiff, a television personality, the sum of $10,000 for moral damages and $7,500 for punitive damages against her ex-husband over a false and malicious posting on a Quebec internet site (the largest in Quebec concerning meetings between men and women) which falsely alleged she was bi-sexual and was looking for the perfect male to engage in “new things.” Her photograph and personal details were also published. The information was posted on the site for 2.5 days.
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench awarded the plaintiff, Chief Executive Officer of a corporation, $75,000 general damages and $25,000 punitive damages over false accusations impeaching his honesty and integrity in memos and emails sent to the Board of the corporation, at least two outside investment brokers and an unknown number of investors through anonymous postings on Stockhouse, a website which provides financial information to subscribers and provides a group of internet chat rooms called “bullboards” where subscribers can post messages about particular stocks.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal sustained a lower court ruling awarding the plaintiffs, two RCMP officers, defamation damages.
The Quebec Court (Civil Small Claims) awarded $500 damages to the plaintiff company over a small posting by the defendant debtor on an Internet “cyberjournal” which read: “Cabinets of poor quality – I am looking for people who have done business with a company [stating its location] which make cabinets and who have had problems with the quality of their cabinets. Urgent, contact me please by email.” The Court noted that although the “cyberjournal” received 5,000 visitors a day, it could not be said how many read the posting. Although libel damages were limited to $500, the court felt it was necessary to send the message that one cannot write whatever you want on the internet and that media is subject to the same legal rules which govern other media. [The plaintiff also recovered judgment against the defendant for the indebtness for the cabinetry].
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff interior designer $30,000 general damages and $5,000 aggravated damages over false allegations posted on the Internet impugning the plaintiff’s integrity and falsely alleging she had refused to pay two judgments against her.
The Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench awarded a senior Crown prosecutor libel damages of $50,000 over statements published by the defendant on a blog on the Internet which made false, serious allegations of misconduct. The defendant refused to apologize. The Court also granted an injunction compelling the defendant to remove all Internet postings concerning the plaintiff.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff author $60,000 damages ($10,000 payable by each of 6 defendants) over false allegations that the plaintiff was a career criminal and child molester which were published on the defendants’ websites and bulletin boards. This award included an element of aggravated damages based on a finding of malice.
The Yukon Supreme Court awarded each of the two individual plaintiffs general damages of $25,000 plus aggravated damages of $10,000 against the defendant, a freelance journalist, over articles published in two local newspapers and on the defendant’s Internet blog. The corporate plaintiff was awarded $10,000 damages for loss of income. With respect to the individual plaintiffs, the Court stated: “…[W]hat is aggravating in this case is the aspect of the internet and the specific invitation to others to communicate with [the plaintiffs]” which resulted in five or six messages to the plaintiffs’ email or by texting. The Court held this was “an invitation of potential harassment and this was certainly an egregious factor.”
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff (former) mayor $50,000 moral damages and $10,000 exemplary damages against the defendant, a Member of the Quebec National Assembly, over allegations of conflict of interest and putting private interest ahead of public interest made in an open letter printed in a newspaper and on the newspaper’s website. The plaintiff’s husband was also awarded $20,000 moral damages and $10,000 exemplary damages. The letter was published on the eve of the municipal election. The plaintiff was not re-elected to the mayor’s office.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff school teacher/financial adviser $25,000 general damages and $12,500 aggravated damages over false allegations in a book published on the Internet and in a print edition that she had committed kidnapping, forgery and fraud. The Court held that “the dissemination … through the Internet is an extremely aggravating factor.”
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff, a senior project manager, $100,000 general damages for defamation over libels contained in emails which falsely reflected on her reputation for honesty, integrity and trustworthiness. Although the defamatory emails had a limited initial circulation, the court noted they were seen by a wider audience and the plaintiff worked in a “small, closely-knit network where news travels fast and reaches most individuals.” The plaintiff was also awarded $100,000 damages at large in relation to a claim for intentional interference with economic relations plus further damages to be calculated for economic loss.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff, an ex-employee of the Douglas College Student Union, general damages of $30,000 against the defendant student newspaper over libels published in its hard-copy and online edition which falsely accused him by implication or insinuation of committing a criminal act or omission, including offences relating to misappropriation and fraud.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded each of the two plaintiffs $5,000 moral damages and $5,000 punitive damages over an email sent by the defendant to the plaintiffs’ franchisor falsely alleging the plaintiffs were selling agricultural machinery distributed by a competitor of the franchisor. The plaintiff was justified in thinking the email, which was sent under a false name, put the franchise in danger. The court noted, however, the limited distribution of the email.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded moral damages of $75,000 and punitive damages of $50,000 to the plaintiff , the son of the president of Senegal, over approximately 30 defamatory articles published by the defendant on his Internet blog during a four month period in 2005. The false and defamatory accusations included appropriation or diversion of public funds, illegal trafficking in shares, and threats and intimidation. See also May 14, 2008, Abou-Khallil c Diop, 2008 QCCS 1921
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff 72-year old businessman $50,000 general damages and $20,000 aggravated damages over defamatory statements contained in a Management Information Circular that was disseminated by the defendants in the context of a proxy battle for control of the board of a limited company. The Circular was posted on a web-site for all public corporations.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded symbolic damages of $200 to the defendant on a counterclaim for defamation relating to an email sent by the plaintiff to a third party which impugned the defendant’s honesty. The Court noted that the dissemination of the defamation and its consequences were limited.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded moral (general) damages of $15,000 for defamation which the judge held resulted from the defendant’s breach of a confidentiality clause contained in a settlement agreement. That agreement was made by the defendant in a prior civil lawsuit for damages he brought (against the plaintiff in this litigation.) In that prior lawsuit, the defendant was interviewed by a television reporter, following which stories based on that interview were broadcast on two television news bulletins and disseminated on the Internet. Although the evidence showed that the two television news bulletins reached estimated audiences of 206,700 (6:00 PM) and 67,400 (mid-day), the Court observed that the evidence did not reveal the impact of the Internet publication.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff Warman, a lawyer employed by the Government of Canada, damages capped at $50,000 for defamation and assault. The defamation was contained in Internet postings “published throughout Canada and the world by way of Google website groups, Mailgate website groups and others” on servers located in California, Italy and Germany.
The Court accepted that the plaintiff had proven “publication” (an essential element of the cause of action) stating: “The Internet is a means of publication like no other, given its ability to instantaneously send words throughout the world to the millions who have access to computers. The defendant has caused defamatory words to be communicated to others by the Postings and each time he has re-posted the same defamatory words in the Postings, he has created a new publishing of those words.”
Because the plaintiff brought these proceedings under the “simplified” Rules of Court, he could not recover damages in excess of $50,000 for all causes of action. Although the Court agreed that a total amount of $175,000 would be the appropriate amount for general and aggravated damages, it therefore awarded only the $50,000 maximum comprised as follows: $20,000 general damages for defamation, $10,000 aggravated damages for defamation, $15,000 general damages for assault, and $5,000 aggravated damages for assault.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff RCMP officer Maw general damages of $20,000 and the plaintiff RCMP officer Reaburn general damages of $22,000 over false and defamatory allegations of criminal misconduct published by the defendant in a newspaper with limited circulation and on a website which was relatively unknown.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff, a resident of Australia, damages totalling $154,644.50 for serious, defamatory statements published on numerous websites on the Internet during the period from May 2003 to trial in April 2008 by the defendant, a resident in British Columbia. The defamation award consisted of general damages of $100,000; aggravated damages of $50,000; and special damages of $4,644.40. The plaintiff was also awarded $25,000 for invasion of privacy.
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench awarded the plaintiff general damages for defamation in the amount of $5,000 over the individual defendant’s conduct in forwarding the visitors to the plaintiff’s website to a gay pornographic website for a period of 16 days. The court noted that the nature of the defamation was such that it could not be replicated almost endlessly over the internet as in the case of an actual defamatory statement. The Court also awarded punitive damages of $5,000.
The newspaper defendants were ordered to pay general damages aggregating $210,000 to five plaintiffs over unfounded allegations that they were victims of a marijuana grow-rip and had been involved in a marijuana grow-op. The individual awards were: (1) $55,000; (2) $45,000; (3) $45,000; (4) $35,000; and (5) $30,000. These awards were substantially based on hard-copy publication. However, the defamatory article was also published on the defendant newspaper’s website. The court held that the internet article, probably exacerbated, although to a minor degree, the defamation by the newspaper of the five plaintiffs awarded damages.
The Quebec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff $100,000 moral damages and $25,000 punitive damages over defamatory articles published on an Internet website which falsely alleged the plaintiff had been arrested at the airport in Paris, France, in possession of two suitcases containing 8 million Euros and was trafficking in shares. The defendant also published the same allegations during a radio broadcast in Senegal. The Court held the defendant had invented and fabricated these allegations and ruled that the plaintiff had never been involved in the sale of foreign shares or any other type of illegal business. The Court also noted that the defamatory statements appeared on a blog much visited by people connected to Senegal. This decision is on appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff damages of $20,000 for libel on the internet. The libellous impact was achieved by the defendant’s use of metatags on his own website that misdirected the plaintiff’s potential customers to the defendant’s website, on which the defendant published certain false information of the plaintiff.
The Alberta Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed an appeal by the defendant from a trial judgment that certain statements he made and published on the internet were defamatory. A cross-appeal by the plaintiffs seeking a higher award of damages was also dismissed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the trial judgment awarding aggregate damages of $30,000 to the plaintiffs. An application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was filed on June 23, 2008, [2008] S.C.C.A. No. 285.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff municipal councillor $25,000 general damages and $10,000 punitive damages over false and defamatory allegations relating to the plaintiff’s prior role as Chairman of the local School Board. The libels were contained in three emails disseminated in November, 2005 to a variety of recipients, including Members of the British Columbia Legislature. The Court noted that the defendant “argued that anyone could author an e-mail and make look as though it came from him, when in fact it did not” but ruled that the defence position with respect to the emails was “obstructionist” and held that “those portions of the e-mails produced as exhibits by the plaintiff purporting to be from the defendant were in fact sent to the plaintiff and the others listed on them by [the defendant].”
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded general damages of $5,000 to the plaintiff real estate agent over false allegations of fraudulent behaviour in an email sent to a handful of individuals at a real estate firm. The one email recipient who testified for the plaintiff did not assert the email had a negative effect on her views of the plaintiff. An appeal from this decision was dismissed by the British Columbia Court of appeal on February 25, 2009.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff, a human rights lawyer, defamation damages aggregating $30,000 over nine postings on various Internet websites. The award consisted of $20,000 general damages and $10,000 aggravated damages The Court held that the individual defendant’s statements were designed to hold the plaintiff up to ridicule by “staying away from the truth behind [the plaintiff’s actions] because of his [the defendant’s] profound philosophical support for unbounded and unlimited freedom of expression, despite the parameters and constraints imposed by law.” The Court found that the dominant motive of the individual defendant was to attack the plaintiff personally “in retaliation for the [plaintiff’s] use of legal processes to restrain illegal speech.”
The Ontario Small Claims Court awarded the plaintiff labour lawyer general damages of $7,500 over two defamatory emails sent to prominent members of the union movement and the public.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff school principal and the plaintiff superintendent of instruction defamation damages aggregating $30,000 over a “News Release” and supporting documents posted continuously on an Internet website since January, 2005 which falsely alleged the plaintiff was guilty of violating a court order, assault, use of excessive force and improper action making a school unsafe for a child with Downs syndrome. Each plaintiff was awarded general damages of $15,000. The Court also ordered the removal of the defamatory material from the Internet.
The Quebec Court (Civil) awarded $2,000 to the plaintiff, a consultant who treated compulsive gambling, over defamatory allegations published by the defendant on the plaintiff’s own website for one day, which falsely alleged that the effectiveness of the plaintiff’s methods had been misrepresented to the media.
The Superior Court of Quebec awarded the plaintiff transportation company $25,000 punitive damages against the defendant transportation broker over two defamatory emails sent to the transportation brokers association, and subsequently distributed to all association members, which warned association members against dealing with the plaintiff. The emails made false allegations of misconduct against the plaintiff. The Court also ordered the defendant to formally apologize to the plaintiff and to inform all members of the transportation brokers association to disregard its defamatory emails.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff $75,000 general damages and $50,000 aggravated damages over a defamatory email sent by the defendants to a municipal Clerk with instructions that it be circulated to members of the municipal council, opposing the renewal of a hot dog vendor licence. The Court held that the email made serious, malicious allegations of misconduct for the purpose of punishing and hurting the plaintiff, who was a competitor.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded defamation damages totalling $257,500 to two corporations offering kayak tours in waters east of Vancouver Island. The Court held that the individual male defendant was responsible because he participated in publishing the defamatory statements concerning the plaintiff eco-tourism companies on a website by “formulating, then communicating, authorizing and approving” their publication on the website. In such circumstances, it was no defence that someone else ( a bankrupt co-defendant) was the person who actually posted the defamatory statements on the website. Details of the damages awarded are as follows: (a) general damages of $100,000 plus punitive damages of $2,500 to the corporate plaintiff WeGo Kayaking Ltd. and (b) general damages of $150,000 plus punitive damages of $5,000 to the corporate plaintiff Northern Lights Expeditions Ltd.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff computer systems engineer $10,000 general damages over false allegations by the defendant that the plaintiff had defrauded the defendant and his collision company with the unauthorized use of the defendant’s credit card and by “reneging” on payment terms for his insurance deductible. The false and defamatory statements were made in two emails sent by the defendant to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, one of which was also copied to two officers of the Associate of Auto Trades.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff lawyer $50,000 general damages, $25,000 aggravated damages and $10,000 punitive damages over false allegations that he was dishonest as a lawyer, political candidate and community leader. These false allegations were published over a period of six years on web sites, in a written notice of a media conference, and on a placard worn by the defendant in Vancouver and on occasion near the plaintiff’s offices. The plaintiff was also awarded special costs.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in the course of assessing defamation damages to be awarded to the plaintiffs, rejected the plaintiff’s submission that publication of the offending article on the website of the defendant newspaper from October 2002 to April 2003 was a factor that weighed in support of an award of punitive damages. In this case, the Court noted that the posting of the defamatory editorial on the website was part of the standard practice of the defendant newspaper and not a special step related to the plaintiffs. “An Internet user would need to go through several steps to access the editorial, which suggests that it would not come to the attention of such users as readily as it would have reached the readers of the newspaper in its distribution in print form in the week of October 2, 2002.” The Court held that publication on the website was not shown to have likely had a material effect.
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench awarded general damages aggregating $49,001 to six plaintiffs who were defamed in website postings. The plaintiffs included two school principles, three teachers and the Alberta Teacher’s Association and one of its employees. The individual defendants included parents of children in the schools system.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded defamation damages aggregating $676,000 CAN to eleven plaintiffs who were defamed in sixty defamatory statements published on internet “chat rooms” or “bulletin boards”, a website and in emails which were distributed to large numbers of recipients. The largest individual award of general damages was $150,000 CAN. The judgment included an award of $50,000 CAN punitive damages to be divided equally among the plaintiffs. The Court also granted a permanent injunction against “any statements or other communications which refer to any of the plaintiffs by name, by depiction or by description.”
The Québec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff, a senior city official, the sum of $30,000 Cdn as moral damages for defamation over expression published on the Internet and elsewhere. At paragraph 75 of its judgment, the Court stated that the defendant “ a utilisé un moyen de communication puissant, l’internet, afin de s’assurer de détruire plus largement la reputation” of the plaintiff.
The Nunavut Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff prison warden general damages of $35,000 including aggravated damages over defamatory expression contained in a hard-copy newsletter published by subordinate employees. The Court held that the plaintiff’s damages were aggravated by the dissemination of the newsletter’s defamatory allegations on an internet message board which provoked “local anonymous commentary” and thereby “expanded” the publication.
The Ontario Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff $75,000 Cdn general damages and $50,000 Cdn aggravated damages over emails which the court held were false and defamatory.
The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the corporate plaintiff, a gold mining company, was entitled to $75,000 Cdn general damages and $50,000 Cdn punitive damages for libels published in postings on various websites. The lower court judge had awarded only $15,000 Cdn general damages and nothing for punitive damages.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the defendant radio show host the sum of $100 Cdn as nominal damages over what it held were false and defamatory allegations by the defendant by counterclaim – the Citizens Research Institute Society – on its website.
The Québec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff hockey team administrator the sum of $3,500 Cdn as moral damages for defamation against the defendant hockey player over allegations published in a newspaper and on the newspaper’s website.
The Québec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff hockey team general manager the sum of $2,000 Cdn as moral damages for defamation against the defendant hockey player over allegations published in a newspaper and on the newspaper’s website.
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench awarded the plaintiff oil and gas exploration company $10,000 Cdn general damages over false, anonymous and defamatory e-mails and messages posted in chat rooms – called bullboards – where people could post messages about particular stocks. The individual plaintiff – the president and CEO of the company — was awarded $40,000 Cdn general damages and $25,000 Cdn punitive damages.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff – a non-profit, non-governmental, volunteer organization — $1,000 Cdn general damages. The court also awarded the president of the organization $4000 Cdn general damages and the secretary/treasurer $3000 Cdn general damages. The Court held that the libels were contained in two emails sent by the defendant, a board member, to other board members, to committee chairs and to provincial branches of the organization in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
The Québec Superior Court awarded the male plaintiff – a restaurant operator — $6,250 Cdn moral damages over the defendant’s statements and comments which appeared on his Internet website for 125 days. The $6,250 Cdn award represented $50 Cdn damages per day for the website publication. The male plaintiff was also awarded $1,750 Cdn punitive damages. The male plaintiff’s wife, although not expressly named by the defendant in the libels, was awarded $1,500 Cdn moral damages and $1,750 Cdn pecuniary damages for losses to the restaurant business (150 meals). In addition, the court awarded the plaintiffs a total of $2,250 Cdn damages for legal expenses.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff geophysicist defamation damages totaling $300,000 Cdn in relation to certain articles published in “Stockwatch,” a Vancouver publication which is made available to subscribers principally via Internet. The plaintiff was also awarded special (substantial indemnity) costs. The award consisted of $200,000 Cdn general damages and $100,000 Cdn aggravated damages. On September 28, 2005, the Court of Appeal sustained the award of $200,000 Cdn general damages but set aside the award of $100,000 for aggravated damages: 2005 BCCA 467.
See McConchie and Potts, Canadian Libel and Slander Actions, “Chapter Twenty-Three: Pleadings,” “Fair Comment,” page 583.
The Québec Superior Court awarded defamation damages aggregating $220,000 Cdn over approximately thirty Internet postings by the defendant. The plaintiff association AMTO (doctors treating obesity) was awarded $25,000 Cdn punitive damages; the plaintiff Pro-amino (a corporation selling food products) was awarded $25,000 Cdn punitive damages. Two doctors were each awarded $25,000 Cdn moral damages and $50,000 Cdn punitive damages. A third individual was awarded $10,000 Cdn moral damages and $10,000 Cdn punitive damages.
The Québec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff – the president of a non-profit society — the sum of $50,000 Cdn moral damages over defamatory allegations contained in a letter mailed to members and contributors and others and posted on the society’s Internet site, in messages and text on the Internet home page of the society, in certain statements made to a newspaper, and in a written communication to members of the society pending its annual meeting in 2001. The female co-plaintiff was awarded $10,000 Cdn damages. In addition, the court awarded the plaintiffs damages of $100,000 Cdn to defray their legal costs.
The Québec Superior Court awarded the plaintiff lawyer/ambulance technician $100,000 Cdn damages ($50,000 moral; $50,000 exemplary) arising from a communique sent by fax by the defendant union to regional unions affiliated with a national federation of unions. The circular was posted on the bulletin boards of ambulance companies in Québec whose unions were affiliated with the national federation. The same communique was also posted on the Internet site of the defendant union.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the aggregate sum of $400,000 Cdn damages to the plaintiff over libels published on the Internet on at least seven different websites. The award consisted of $200,000 Cdn general damages, $50,000 Cdn aggravated damages against each of the two defendants, and $50,000 Cdn punitive damages against each of the defendants.
See McConchie and Potts, Canadian Libel and Slander Actions, “Chapter Thirty: Damages,” “Aggravated Damages,” page 852; “Avoiding Overlap between General and Aggravated Damages,” page 853; “Awards,” page 866.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia awarded $40,000 Cdn general damages, $10,000 Cdn aggravated damages and $10,000 Cdn punitive damages to the plaintiff police constable for defamatory statements published on two websites.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded a provincial cabinet minister general damages of $30,000 Cdn for defamation against defendant radio talk-show host and his employer, a radio station, over a broadcast and over the posting of the text of the broadcast on the radio station’s website.
See McConchie and Potts, Canadian Libel and Slander Actions, pages 165, 182, 184, 185, 187, 189, 317, 460, 764, 786, 787.
The British Columbia Supreme Court awarded damages aggregating $875,000 Cdn to a newspaper columnist, David Baines, for several articles, a press release, and an oral statement made at a business seminar.
The damage awards included general damages of $250,000 Cdn against the defendants Chelekis and Market News (a distributor of information by means of electronic communication to private investors, including supplying material to Star Data and Bloomburg, thereby achieving worldwide distribution).
Aggravated damages of $100,000 Cdn and punitive damages of $100,000 Cdn were also awarded, presumably in part in relation to the electronic communications.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed an appeal by two of the defendants, Market News Publishing Inc. and Robert Shore, from the assessment against them of damages in the sum of $250,000 (see (c) above). Leave to appeal to the SCC was denied [2000] SCCA 177 (SC)
See McConchie and Potts, Canadian Libel and Slander Actions, “Chapter Thirty: Damages, Awards” -pages 865, 894.
Five school board officials and the Toronto District School Board sued in the Ontario Superior Court over defamatory letters which were posted on Web sites and on Scribe, an internal bulletin system of the Scarborough Board of Education.
The Court awarded a total of $15,000 Cdn general damages to five of the plaintiffs ($3,000 Cdn each to four individuals and the School Board) plus a total of $2,000 Cdn aggravated damages ($500 to each of the four individual plaintiffs who received an award of general damages).
In addition, the court awarded $1,500 Cdn punitive damages to one individual plaintiff. The court subsequently ordered that the defendants pay solicitor and client costs (substantial indemnity for legal fees) [2000] O.J. No. 840.
The Police Chief of London, Ontario brought a lawsuit in the Ontario Court General Division over an individual who made defamatory remarks in electronic messages. The plaintiff obtained a default judgment in the amount of $40,000.