ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N :
KEVIN BOOTH, BRANDON BOOTH BY HIS LITIGATION GUARDIAN, KEVIN BOOTH and MATHEW BOOTH BY HIS LITIGATION GUARDIAN, KEVIN BOOTH
Plaintiffs
- and -
TAMIE COLEMAN
Defendant
HEARD: May 15-28, 2012
KRUZICK J.
- INTRODUCTION
Introduction
1Mr. Booth claims damages for malicious prosecution as a result of complaints to the police made by Ms. Coleman. He alleges defamation and slander. The complaints resulted in charges of assault and threatening bodily harm, both of which were withdrawn.
2The claim is defended by Ms. Coleman. Her counter-claim for damages against Mr. Booth for physical assault and threatening bodily harm was abandoned prior to the commencement of this trial.
3In this action Mr. Booth claims general damages of $100,000.00 and special damages of $200,000.00. The other plaintiffs in the civil action are Mr. Booth’s children, Brandon Booth and Mathew Booth, who make a claim for damages under the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990 Chapter F-3, in the amount of $100,000.00.
4There is a companion divorce action between the parties for which I have provided separate reasons for judgment. In the divorce action both parties also seek a restraining order against the other. The parties agreed that the evidence in the divorce proceeding and the civil action should apply to both trials.
2. BACKGROUND
Background
5In January 2003 Ms. Coleman alleged that she was physically assaulted by Mr. Booth. She called the police and Mr. Booth was arrested and criminally charged. Mr. Booth subsequently entered into a peace bond and the criminal charges were withdrawn by the authorities. The parties reconciled in 2003 and continued to live together until 2005. In September 2005 Ms. Coleman called the police and alleged that Mr. Booth was threatening her with physical harm. Consequently, Mr. Booth was criminally charged with threatening bodily harm. The parties then separated. In September 2005 he entered into a peace bond and the charge was withdrawn.
6In February 2006 Mr. Booth commenced the civil suit. Ms. Coleman entered a defence and counter-claim. Like the divorce proceeding, this action was acrimoniously litigated with numerous, involved interlocutory motions.
7Mr. Booth denies the allegations made against him. He takes the position that the charges were withdrawn when he entered into the two peace bonds in order the settle the criminal proceedings as proposed by the authorities. He argues that since last reporting to the police Ms. Coleman has perpetuated the allegations to third parties. Ms. Coleman takes the position that she was physically and verbally assaulted, and that since their separation Mr. Booth has also continued to contact third parties in harassment of her.
THE EVIDENCE
The Evidence
8The evidence relating to the claim comprised solely of the testimony of Mr. Booth. There was no evidence called with respect to the claim of Mr. Booth’s children.
9In his testimony, Mr. Booth claims that as a result of the allegations made his life has been destroyed. He has been so preoccupied by the family law and civil matters which flow from these allegations that he is not able to work because he is depressed and consumed by these proceedings. He testified he finds himself on social assistance. In his testimony, he referred to the claims in the statement of claim that he suffered insomnia, nervous anxiety, loss of income and a loss of reputation. He also argues that when the parties separated in 2005 he and his children needed to relocate and that he lost a number of personal items which he left behind in the home.
10Ms. Coleman stands behind her allegations. She testified that she has only repeated the allegations in her professional consultations and in the court actions. She denies that she has otherwise repeated them or used them in any way to harm Mr. Booth.
11Given the facts, I am satisfied that the reporting was made by Ms. Coleman to the authorities and that the charges were subsequently withdrawn. I am unable to satisfy myself on precisely what happened when the alleged incidents occurred. The testimony of both Mr. Booth and Ms. Coleman was conflicting. I had no other evidence other than that of Klye Dell, which testimony I find unreliable, given his age at the time, the passage of some more than seven years and his relationship to Ms. Coleman, his mother.
12These reportings to the police clearly did occur; but, on the balance of probabilities, I am not able to find that the physical or verbal attacks occurred as alleged by Ms. Coleman. Similarly, I am not able to find that they did not.
13With respect to Mr. Booth’s evidence on the impact of the allegations upon him, little weight can be ascribed to Mr. Booth’s testimony as to the impact on him. While I accept that his life was disrupted and in turmoil following the separation of the parties, that is not unusual following the breakdown of what appeared to be a troubled and difficult relationship for both parties.
14I do accept that the circumstances were both upsetting and seriously disruptive to Mr. Booth, and his life and may have impacted on his children. I also bear in mind that, notwithstanding his position, he and Ms. Coleman reconciled in 2003, a few months following the first allegation and then continued in the relationship for some two years until the final separation.
THE DEFAMATION CLAIM
The Defamation Claim
15The defamation and damages claim is based on what Mr. Booth alleges were false statements made by Ms. Coleman to discredit him. It is, of course, a particularly damaging statement since it alleges the commission of a criminal act.
16I accept that there have been serious ramifications to Mr. Booth resulting from the two reportings and resulting charges. He has not, however, satisfactorily proved any impact upon his reputation or his ability to work, other than through his own testimony.
17Damages would be limited to the impact on him; to the consequences which the communication of the alleged false statements has had for his personal reputation in the community at large.
18Although anyone responsible for publication of the defamatory statements is liable for the harm to Mr. Booth’s reputation, here, the award could only be made against Ms. Coleman.
19The repetition of the allegations by Ms. Coleman to members of her family from whom Ms. Coleman sought comfort does not qualify to support Mr. Booth’s position. In any case, Ms. Coleman’s son, who has been involved in these proceedings, testified that he was present during the first incident.
20Repeating her story to authorities or individuals with whom she has consulted professionally does not warrant an award. Communications to doctors, therapists or other professionals, whom Ms. Coleman contacted following the separation of the parties, including the police, do not fall in the category of defamation or slander.
21Although damages are presumed where slander occurs, I am required to consider the character and conduct of both parties. After hearing the evidence of both parties I am left with no more than “he said, she said” scenarios as to the events which give rise to the claim and their personal circumstances since then. My consideration also focused on the effect which the statements have had on Mr. Booth in the community, and on his sense of dignity and self-esteem.
22After hearing both parties, I cannot but conclude that each of them felt that betrayal and the sense of being taken advantage of in this relatively short relationship. Clearly the feelings of both parties were hurt and Mr. Booth, who makes this claim, suffered emotionally as a result . So did Ms. Coleman.
23In assessing the damages as claimed, the allegations made by Ms. Coleman are alleged by Mr. Booth to be high-handed, outrageous, offensive and without foundation. I bear in mind that as a result of both allegations, Mr. Booth entered into peace bonds.
24There was no evidence called to support the claim that Mr. Booth has been unable to work because of the allegations made or upon his physical or mental inability to work. Both parties were obviously consumed by the legal proceedings and in that way perpetuated their dysfunctional relationship.
25Neither party in their submissions referred me to the law.
DECISION
Decision
26This court can make an award which is intended to discourage people from defaming their fellow citizens. In my assessment of what happened between these parties, this most unfortunate case does not justify such a result.
27As a result the claim for civil damages is dismissed.
KRUZICK J.
RELEASED: January 31, 2013
COURT FILE NO.: 06-CV-306342PD2
DATE: 20130131
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N :
KEVIN BOOTH, BRANDON BOOTH BY HIS LITIGATION GUARDIAN, KEVIN BOOTH and MATHEW BOOTH BY HIS LITIGATION GUARDIAN, KEVIN BOOTH
Plaintiffs
- and -
TAMIE COLEMAN
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
KRUZICK J.
RELEASED: January 31, 2013
