Brian G. Shiller

The plaintiff brought a defamation action arising from an internet article that repeated and endorsed allegations originally published in a national newspaper accusing the plaintiff of fabricating racist material to support human rights complaints.

The defendant republished the article on a website and added commentary portraying the plaintiff as corrupt and engaged in “phony-racism.” The court found the publication clearly defamatory and rejected the defences of fair comment, qualified privilege, and responsible communication, holding that the article primarily asserted defamatory facts and that internet publication to the world was not an occasion of privilege.

The defendant had relied on a previously retracted newspaper article without conducting further verification.

General damages of $10,000 were awarded, and the defendant’s posted retraction and apology were found inadequate to reduce the damages.

Following a judgment in favour of the plaintiff in a defamation action, the court determined the quantum of costs and pre-judgment interest.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $121,000, while the defendant argued for partial indemnity costs of $30,000 to $40,000.

The court considered the plaintiff's offers to settle, post-judgment conduct, and the use of the simplified procedure, ultimately fixing costs at $65,000 for fees and $8,000 for disbursements.

The court also held that defamation is not a 'personal injury' for the purposes of the 5% pre-judgment interest rate under s. 128(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, and applied the default rate of 1.3%.

The plaintiff, a law student, sued the defendant, a blogger and political commentator, for defamation arising from nine blog posts.

The posts related to a British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal hearing involving Maclean's magazine, where the plaintiff testified.

The defendant repeatedly called the plaintiff a 'liar' and an 'anti-Semite' in his posts.

The court found the words were defamatory and that the defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege failed, largely due to factual inaccuracies and the defendant's express malice toward the plaintiff's perceived associate.

The court awarded the plaintiff $50,000 in general damages and $30,000 in aggravated damages, and ordered the removal of the defamatory words from the defendant's website.

The applicant, the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, sought a declaration that its insurer owed a duty to defend it in three separate lawsuits alleging malicious prosecution, false arrest, and defamation arising from animal cruelty investigations.

The insurer denied coverage, relying on policy exclusions for intentional acts, willful violation of penal statutes, and the fortuity principle.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the underlying claims were covered by the policy, the exclusions did not apply (except for one property damage claim), and the fortuity principle did not preclude coverage because the resulting harm was not intended.

The insurer was ordered to defend the actions.