Defamation (Damages)

Cable Assembly Systems Ltd. et al. v. Ben Barnes et al., 2019 ONSC 97 (CanLII)

Defamation (Damages)

[68] In Nassri v. Homsi, 2017 ONSC 4554 (CanLII), Lederer J. directed his mind to the assessment of damages if a finding of defamation was proven on the balance of probabilities. Commencing at para. 18 he stated:

The presence of damage is established by the finding that there was defamation. General damages are presumed once the tort has been made out. They arise by inference of law and do not require proof of actual injury. As reported in Grant v. Torstar Corp., supra still at para. 28, the only exception is that slander requires proof of special damages, unless the impugned words were slanderous per se: R. E. Brown, The Law of Defamation in Canada (2nd ed. (loose-leaf)), vol. 3, at pp. 25-2 and 25-3. In defamation, damages reflect what the law presumes to be the natural or probable consequences of the defendant’s conduct and the harm which normally results from the tort. General damages include injury to the plaintiff for loss of esteem and injury to the plaintiff’s feelings (Myers v. Canadian Broadcasting Inc., 1999 CarswellOnt 3735 at paras. 156-157, rev’d in part on other grounds and aff’d 2001 CarswellOnt 2037 (C.A.), leave to appeal to the S.C.C. refused [2001] S.C.C.A. No. 433).

Despite the general nature of the appraisal this recognition of damage invites, there must be some instruction or guidelines that direct the inquiry and inform the conclusion. In Barrick Gold Corp. v. Lopehandia, 2004 CanLII 12938 (ON CA), 2004 CarswellOnt 2258 (ONCA) (in turn drawing on Hill v. Church of Scientology(1995), 1995 CanLII 59 (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130, 25 C.C.L.T. (2d) 89, 126 D.L.R. (4th) 129, 24 O.R. (3d) 865 (note) the Court of Appeal of Ontario provided factors that can be used to assess damages in an action for defamation:

The standard factors to consider in determining damages for defamation are summarized in Hill v. Church of Scientology. They include:

(1) the plaintiff's position and standing;

(2) the nature and seriousness of the defamatory statements;

(3) the mode and extent of publication;

(4) the absence or refusal of any retraction or apology;

(5) the whole conduct and motive of the defendant from publication through judgment; and

(6) any evidence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

[69] I find that CAS Ltd. had a good reputation in the cable installation business, not only in Brantford, but throughout Ontario. This is confirmed by the representation of Telus who use CAS Ltd.’s services and are also competitors of CAS Ltd. This reputation was placed in serious jeopardy by the statements made by Barnes.

[70] I find that Barnes made similar false representations relative to poor workmanship by CAS Ltd. to his superiors within the City of Brantford in addition to Earl, the Belden representative.

[71] Barnes never acknowledged that his statements relative to the workmanship of CAS Ltd. were false or defamatory. He continued throughout the trial to represent that CAS Ltd. work was poor, sloppy and lacked timeliness.

[72] It is an aggravating circumstance that Barnes was well aware of the fact that CAS Ltd. used Belden as a sole source for its cable product. He knew or ought to have known that his false statements of poor workmanship on the part of CAS Ltd. (something that he falsely alleged to have been acknowledged by Brantford Hydro) could have a serious negative impact on CAS Ltd.’s business.

General and Non-Pecuniary Damages

[73] Any monetary award of damages for defamation is to demonstrate to the community the vindication of the reputation of the Plaintiffs. The damages are awarded because of the injury to the Plaintiffs’ reputation and not as compensation for the damaged reputation.

[74] Once damaged, a reputation is difficult to restore and the law recognizes that a person whose reputation is damaged suffers injury occasioned by that defamation. I agree with the Plaintiff’s submission that Barnes acted maliciously and that he abused his position of public authority.

[75] Under the circumstances of this case, an award of general damages in the amount of $75,000.00 is appropriate: see McNarin v. Murphy, 2017 ONSC 1678 (CanLII).

[76] Given my finding that the actions of Barnes were malicious, and an abuse of his position, the Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages in the amount of $75,000.00.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v Farrell, 1987 CanLII 3929 (NL CA)

[14] The law of libel, as well as libel awards in other Canadian jurisdictions, was next discussed by the trial judge. He then dealt once more with what he termed were the "devastating results" of the C.B.C. publications on Dr. Farrell and finding that:

"… C.B.C. acted with malice and acted carelessly and recklessly with knowledge of the harm it would do to the plaintiff and his family and if not it should have and ought to have known the harm the defamatory broadcasts would cause the plaintiff."

and repeating once again much of what he had already said as to his views of the actions of C.B.C. and the damage caused, he awarded the sum of $80,000.00 to Dr. Farrell which sum included exemplary as well as compensatory damages. As seen, he also awarded costs to Dr. Farrell on a solicitor and "his own" client basis as well as party and party costs.

[31] Finally, in the matter of quantum, it is necessary to consider other awards. It is these which demonstrate that, despite the nature of C.B.C.'s actions in this matter, and in the absence of proved pecuniary loss, the trial judge's award is clearly excessive.

[32] There are five relatively recent cases which, in my opinion, put this matter in its right perspective. These are: (1) Baxter v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Mailing (1980), 30 N.B.R.(2d) 102; 70 A.P.R. 102; (2) Snyder v. Montreal Gazette (1983), 1983 CanLII 2859 (QC CA), 5 D.L.R.(4th) 206; (3) Vogel v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation et al., 1982 CanLII 801 (BC SC), [1982] 3 W.W.R. 97; (4) Munro v. Toronto Sun Publishing Corporation (1982), 1982 CanLII 1758 (ON SC), 39 O.R. (2d) 100; and (5) Farrell v. St. John's Publishing Co., supra.

[33] The Baxter case bears some minor resemblance to the case at bar. The plaintiff sued in libel for having been defamed on the C.B.C. program "The Fifth Estate" which stated that when he was New Brunswick Minister of Justice, he stopped an investigation by the R.C.M.P. into alleged "kickbacks" to a Conservative Party fund. On appeal, an award of $1,000.00 given at trial was increased to $10,000.00. There was no imputation of criminal conduct and there was only one broadcast item. In Snyder, a trial jury had awarded the plaintiff $135,000.00 because of an article in the Gazette which published an article concerning the plaintiff, a prominent public figure, which article was headed "Former City Official called member of 'Jewish Mafia'". On appeal, by a 2-1 majority, the award was reduced, rather spectacularly, to $13,-500.00 which, the majority felt, represented the Gazette's share of the total damage to Mr. Snyder, severe pecuniary damages not having been proved. (This case is under appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.)

[34] In Vogel and Munro (both of which are dealt with extensively in the judgment of Morgan, J.A., of this court in the Farrell v. Evening Telegram case [see (1986), 1986 CanLII 2436 (NL CA), 58 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 66; 174 A.P.R. 66]), a provincial Deputy Attorney General and a federal cabinet minister were seriously libelled. In the former case, it was reported that Mr. Vogel had interfered with the course of justice in three criminal trials to protect friends and, in the latter, an article was published stating that Mr. Munro had used information given to him in cabinet meetings to make profits for himself and for another person by the timely purchase of Petrofina shares. The awards were $125,000.00 and $75,000.00 respectively. However, as already pointed out by Mr. Justice Morgan, these cases involved exemplary or punitive damages, which I feel are not called for here, in addition to compensatory damages and were much more serious than the present case because, as stated by him (at page 82):

"These cases differ from the case at bar in that, in both, the defendants were the originators of the libellous publications. In Vogel, the defendants were found to be motivated by a desire for sensationalism and broadcast the defamatory story in reckless disregard for any injury that would be occasioned the plaintiff. In Munro the libellous article was published out of personal spite. In both, the need for an award of punitive damages was apparent."