Ontario Court Finds Defamation Particularly Blameworthy When Online

The Ontario Court of Appeal released its judgment in Barrick Gold Corporation v Lopehandia on June 4, 2004, indicating that defamatory statements made over the Internet may justify significant damage awards. The case stemmed from a number of defamatory statements made by the defendant BC resident, Jorge Lopehandia, on Internet bulletin boards and web sites about the plaintiff, Barrick Gold Corporation, a business having its head office in Ontario. The statements at issue related to unsuccessful claims of beneficial ownership to a valuable mining project in Chile operated by the plaintiff. On March 12, 2003, the plaintiff obtained a default judgment in Ontario in the amount of $15,000 in general damages for injury to its reputation. The plaintiff appealed the quantum of general damages and sought punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief. In allowing the plaintiff's appeal and increasing the general damage award to $75,000, the Court contrasted the publication of defamatory material on the Internet with publication in traditional media. In the opinion of the Court, "Internet defamation is distinguished from its less pervasive cousins, in terms of its potential to damage the reputation of individuals and corporations … especially in its interactive nature, its potential for being taken at face value, and its absolute and immediate worldwide ubiquity and accessibility." As additional relief, the Court of Appeal awarded punitive damages of $50,000 and issued an injunction against the defendant. In awarding punitive damages, the Court ruled that the motions judge had misconstrued the vulnerability factor, noting that the plaintiff was not a powerful party in this context; rather, it was the plaintiff who was vulnerable to the defamatory statements of the defendant over the Internet. The Court also granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from posting or publishing further defamatory statements about the plaintiff or its officers, on the basis that the actions of the defendant affected personal property in Ontario, namely, the company's goodwill. In considering the jurisdictional issues related to the injunction, the Court found there to be a real and substantial connection with Ontario and noted that the Internet should not be employed to circumvent defamation law. Even if the scope of the injunction were limited to Ontario, it could be enforced against the Yahoo! Canada Inc bulletin board located in Toronto and used by the defendant. Further, the Court was optimistic that the injunction would also be enforced in British Columbia under the "real and substantial connection" test. For a copy of the decision, see: http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2004/june/barrickC39837.pdf. Summary by: