David A. Potts

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondents general damages of $75,000 and punitive damages of $75,000 for defamation.

The trial judge found that the appellant, a City manager, made defamatory statements about the respondents' business during a meeting with a supplier representative, acted maliciously in response to complaints the respondent had made about him, and abused his position as a public officer.

The Court of Appeal upheld the findings of defamation, malice, and abuse of position, but set aside the punitive damages award, finding that the trial judge failed to analyze whether the compensatory damages were adequate to achieve the objectives of retribution, deterrence, and condemnation.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a defamation action against the defendants, a newspaper publisher and its writers.

The defendants published numerous articles and online posts referring to the plaintiff as a bully, fraudster, and habitual liar.

The court found the statements were defamatory and that the defendants could not rely on the defences of justification, qualified privilege, responsible communication, or fair comment.

The court also found the defendants were motivated by express malice.

Summary judgment was granted, awarding the plaintiff $300,000 in general and aggravated damages, $110,000 in punitive damages, and a permanent injunction.

In a libel action arising from statements in a book concerning alleged misconduct at a media corporation, the plaintiff moved under Rule 21 to strike numerous paragraphs of the defendants’ amended statement of defence.

The defendants relied on the “Pizza Pizza” defence, asserting they were entitled to plead contextual meanings and justification for the allegedly defamatory passages.

The court reviewed limits on libel pleadings, including prohibitions on pleading new libels, repeating defamatory statements of others, alleging worse conduct than that pleaded in the claim, or drafting pleadings designed to provoke oppressive discovery.

Applying these principles, the court struck multiple paragraphs that introduced new libels, repeated defamatory allegations, attacked non-parties, or would lead to disproportionate discovery.

Leave was granted to the defendants to further amend their pleading in accordance with the governing principles.