Leenen v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation et al. [Indexed as: Leenen v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp.]
54 O.R. (3d) 612
Docket No. C34272
Court of Appeal for Ontario
McMurtry C.J.O., Catzman and Austin JJ.A.
June 12, 2001
- Note: Reasons for judgment for Myers v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., a companion appeal to this proceeding can be found at p. 626 and p. 633 (traduction française), post.
** Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed with costs February 7, 2002 (McLachlin C.J., Major and Arbour JJ.). S.C.C. File No. 28774. S.C.C. Bulletin, 2002, p. 69.
Civil procedure--Costs--Solicitor and client costs--Trial judge in defamation action awarded aggravated and punitive damages--Trial judge did not err in also awarding plaintiff his costs on solicitor and client basis--Defendants not punished more than once for same conduct.
Damages--Libel and slander--General, aggravated and punitive damages--Defendants produced television program about safety of certain heart medications--Program implied that plaintiff doctor and research scientist supported prescribing of killer drugs, was in conflict of interest, received pay-off from pharmaceutical company and acted negligently or dishonestly as chairman of ad hoc advisory committee of Health Canada's Health Protection Branch--Aggravated damages of $350,000, general damages of $400,000 and punitive damages of $200,000 affirmed on appeal.
Torts--Libel and slander--Defences--Fair comment--Defendants produced television program about safety of certain heart medications--Program implied that plaintiff doctor and research scientist supported prescribing of killer drugs, was in conflict of interest, received pay-off from pharmaceutical company and acted negligently or dishonestly as chairman of ad hoc advisory committee of Health Canada's Health Protection Branch--Defence of fair comment failed because defendants deliberately presented unbalanced view of issue and did not honestly believe what they were saying.
Torts--Libel and slander--Defences--Qualified privilege --Defendants produced television program about safety of certain heart medications--Program implied that plaintiff doctor and research scientist supported prescribing of killer drugs, was in conflict of interest, received pay-off from pharmaceutical company and acted negligently or dishonestly as chairman of ad hoc advisory committee of Health Canada's Health Protection Branch--Defence of qualified privilege failed--No public interest served by presentation of biased view which defendants knew to be inaccurate or untrue.
The defendant CBC produced an hour-long television program which examined questions raised in the medical scientific community about the safety of heart medications known as Calcium Channel Blockers, particularly one called nifedipine. The thesis of the program was that nifedipine in its short- acting capsule form, which was approved by Health Canada's Health Protection Branch ("HPB") for the treatment of angina but was being prescribed by doctors for both angina and hypertension, was turning out to be more of a hazard than a help. The plaintiff, a doctor and research scientist, was interviewed. He brought an action for damages for defamation, alleging that the program, and the manner in which his interview was edited, created the innuendo