2020 November 12

Attorney General of Canada v. Manoukian, 2020 QCCA 1486, varying 2018 QCCS 30

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.