Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2017-04-12 Docket: C62541 Judges: Doherty, MacFarland and Rouleau JJ.A.

Between

Senator Tobias Enverga Jr. Plaintiff (Respondent)

and

Balita Newspaper, Balita Media Inc., Tess Cusipag, Romeo P. Marquez (a.k.a. Romy Marquez) and Carlos Padilla Defendants (Appellants)

Counsel

James H. Chow, for the appellants

Howard W. Winkler and Eryn Pond, for the respondent

Heard

April 6, 2017

On Appeal

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Sidney N. Lederman of the Superior Court of Justice, dated July 13, 2016.

Appeal Book Endorsement

[1] This is an appeal from damages only.

[2] We appreciate the standard of review applicable to an appeal from a damage award in a defamation action. The motion judge's reasons are found at [2016] ONSC 4512. They demonstrate a full and accurate appreciation of the legal principles as they apply to the quantification of compensatory and punitive judgments.

[3] The motion judge referred to Botiuk as a similar case insofar as the assessment of compensatory damages is concerned. We agree with the appellant that there were differences between the two cases. However, there were also significant similarities. The trial judge did not err in considering Botiuk and giving some weight to the award approved in that case in making his assessment of compensatory damages.

[4] The appellant suggest that the award is out of line with other awards in cases involving the defamation of political figures. Those cases were not put before the motion judge. In any event, this was not a "political" case on the findings of the motion judge. On those findings, the appellant created a controversy so that she could defame the respondent. This was entirely personal.

[5] The conduct of the appellant as described by the motion judge demanded a substantial award of punitive damages. On his findings, the appellant had repeated the defamation, knowing full well that it was false and intended to continue to repeat the defamation in the future. On the facts as found by the motion judge, deterrence could only be adequately served by a significant award of punitive damages. We cannot say that the amount awarded is outside of the range required to serve as an adequate deterrent in the circumstances of this case. We cannot interfere with the award.

[6] The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent in the amount of $16,000, "all in".