What if I use the Internet to say bad words about someone? How much is that going to cost me?
case #1: Magno v. Balita Media Inc., 2018 ONSC 3230),
Here are the words used by the defamer (in Magno v. Balita Media Inc., 2018 ONSC 3230), on Facebook, Twitter or UTube:
- [39] …arrogant gasbag, a shameless bully, a habitual liar, a fraudster etc. The articles also alleged the plaintiff was guilty of threats and blackmail, dishonesty, falsification of documents, consorting with shady characters, involved in sham marriage, as sanctimonious, overbearing, mean, cruel, ruthless and lacking in moral scruples.
Here is the price tag:
- [40] $300,000 general and aggravated damages + $110,000 punitive damages.
case #2:Rook v Halcrow, 2019 BCSC 2253 (CanLII):
Here are the words used by the defamer in Rook v Halcrow, 2019 BCSC 2253 (CanLII): [10]…known cheater, STD’s and spread them, drunk, uncaring, unfeeling, loser.
Here is the price tag:
- [42] In my view, an appropriate award of general damages is $175,000 general damages and $25,000 aggravated damages. The plaintiff has not claimed punitive damages.
- [43] Turning to special damage, Mr. Rook engaged the services of reputation consultants to assist in having the postings removed. He spent US $29,870.00 as is entitled to recover that from Ms. Halcrow.
case #3:British Columbia Recreation and Parks Association v. Zakharia, 2015 BCSC 1650 (CanLII)
Here are the words used by the defamer in British Columbia Recreation and Parks Association v. Zakharia, 2015 BCSC 1650 (CanLII)
- [48]possible bullying and extortion?…mistreated and threatened…she attacks him and makes him sign documents….malice and hostility
- [53] biased and prejudiced…unprofessional, dishonest, immoral, corrupt, criminals, victimized the disabled
Here is the price tag:
- [[135] $115,000
case #4: Theralase Technologies Inc. v. Latner (2020)ONSC 205
Here are the words:
Here is the price tag:
- [78]…$35,000 + $15,000 (aggrevated damages)
Here is ECC commentary on this case
case #5: Lascaris v. B’nai Brith (2019), 144 O.R.(3d) 211
Here are the words: ‘supports terrorists‘
Here is the price tag: (pending)
- ECC: This case is important because it is an example where the ONCA has put controls upon the ‘anti-SLAPP’ rules of civil procedure recently introduced into Ontario law. These ‘anti-SLAPP rules (which require the defamed victim to overcome a threshold test whereby the court needs to find that it is possible that the defence of fair comment will not succeed) were ostensibly introduced to stop alleged deep-pocket evil-doers from silencing their critics. The premise of such legislation is that there are in fact deep-pocket evil-doers wrongly bringing their critics to court for libel. This government premise implies the dysfunction of the common law, (which is a demonstrably ridiculous premise). In my view the common law court process, before this ‘anti-SLAPP’ legislation was introduced, worked entirely correctly in sorting out the ‘fair comment’ from the slander. Anti-SLAPP advocates, who wanted a get-out-of-jail-free pass, so they could get busy and blast away with impunity at their favourite targets, got a rude awakening from the ONCA.
- ECC: To date (January 1 2022), this case, having been refused leave to the SCC, is pending or settled. I would be interested in knowing how this case turned out because it would advance the caselaw on a where the slander-line is where both sides have excellent political arguments to make.
ECC final comment: There is of course, in every case, the defence of ‘justification’ (the words are true) ‘fair comment’ (the matter is a matter of general public interest and your comments are not characterized by malice). These defences are very difficult to establish.
