Want to stay current on e–commerce law? Sign up for Email Newsletter.
B.C. Supreme Court Awards Nearly $700000 in Damages for Online Defamation
In Newman v. Halstead Justice Jacqueline Dorgan ordered Susan Pearl Halstead (“Halstead”) to compensate 11 plaintiffs a total of $681,000.00 after publishing defamatory statements "in the context of a prolonged and sustained campaign of character assassination against each of the plaintiffs.''
The plaintiffs commenced the action against Halstead, who was a long-time volunteer in various community activities relating to schools and education issues, in January 2004. Over a period of several years the defendant had created websites, chat rooms and bulletin boards on which she posted a wide variety of allegations of wrongdoing. The allegations she made against the various plaintiffs included quite extreme behaviour, including assaulting students, threatening special needs students with baseball bats and mallets, abandoning classrooms, holding a school hostage, drinking while at school or being high at school events, making sexually inappropriate comments to students, having had foster children removed by the Ministry of Children and Families, professional incompetence, and others. The plaintiffs initially named several Internet service providers and Internet website hosts as well, but discontinued actions against them, and proceeded solely against Halstead.
Although the plaintiffs were in a position to obtain default judgment against Halstead because she failed to participate in the trial, they applied for an order that the trial proceed, to allow them the opportunity to prove that they were in fact the subject of defamatory statements made and published by the defendant. The court ordered the trial to proceed, notwithstanding the absence of Halstead.
If a plaintiff proves the published words are defamatory of him or her, the defendant has the onus of proving that one of the three defences applies; the affirmative defences to defamation are: 1) justification; 2) fair comment; or 3) qualified privilege.
Each of the defences of justification and fair comment require proof that the impugned statements or the facts upon which they are based, are true. In her pleadings, Halstead asserted that her published statements were true, but failed, as a result of her absence, to support that assertion at trial.
In assessing damages, the trial judge noted the broad reach of the Internet and the defendant’s incessant use of it. She also noted that the defendant had shown no regret for her allegations. The trial judge awarded compensatory damages of $626,000.00 between the 11 plaintiffs and $50,000.00 in punitive damages. Due to the reasonable possibility that Halstead would continue to publish her allegations on the Internet or elsewhere, the judge ordered injunctive relief preventing Halstead from repeating her claims or publishing “whether by way of the Internet or otherwise, any statements or other communications which refer to any of the plaintiffs by name, by depiction, or by description.”
For a copy of the decision, visit: