Ontario Superior Court Awards Damages for Defamation Against an Unknown Defendant

In Manson v John Doe, 2013 ONSC 628, Justice Goldstein of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Court) granted a summary judgment motion brought by the Plaintiff against an unknown Defendant or Defendants (Defendant). The Plaintiff is a lawyer. In January 2010, he became aware of statements posted on Google’s web service, Blogger.com, that suggested that he was a lying crook, a Nazi, a pedophile and a rapist. Justice Goldstein found the nature of the posts shocking, disgusting, outrageous, racist, provocative and clearly defamatory. The Defendant also sent e-mails to senior executives of the Plaintiff’s employer, with links to the posts. The posts were removed by Google in July 2010, but only after repeated requests by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has been unsuccessful in determining the identity of the Defendant. The Defendant has responded to e-mails from Plaintiff’s counsel; however, the Defendant has refused to identify himself. The Defendant is also in contempt for failing to comply with a court order compelling the Defendant to identify itself. In his decision, Justice Goldstein states: “There are few things more cowardly and insidious than an anonymous blogger who posts spiteful and defamatory comments about reputable member of the public and then hides behind the electronic curtain provided by the Internet.” Justice Goldstein awarded the Plaintiff $150,000 in general and aggravated damages, imposed punitive damages and awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis. While awarding punitive damages, Justice Goldstein stated “As must be obvious from these reasons, the Defendant’s actions offend the Court’s sense of decency. Reflecting, as the Court does, community standards, it is clear that a strong message of denunciation and deterrence must be sent.” Even though the Plaintiff received a favourable decision, it is unlikely that he will be able to collect his costs or damages. This raises the issue whether there is a way to protect individuals from defamation from anonymous online sources. An interesting hypothetical question is whether the Plaintiff would have been successful in bringing a claim against Google for not immediately removing the content after it received notice. A similar case was decided in the English Court of Appeal. In Tamiz v Google [2013] EWCA Civ 68, the English Court of Appeal ruled that Google could be a publisher of defamatory material on its Blogger.com web service, if it receives notice of the defamatory material and fails to remove it. (Look for the mini-article on the Tamiz v Google case elsewhere in this issue of E-TIPS®). Summary by: Adam Lis