|
In Barrick Gold Corp. v. Lopehandia, the Ontario Court of Appeal upped the ante on internet libel, awarding $125,000 to the plaintiff. Lopehandia had claimed that he nominally owned a Chilean mine site acquired by the plaintiff. The defendant had posted on various internet bulletin boards messages accusing the company of fraud, money laundering, orgainzed crime, and crimes against humanity among other things.
The trial judge had concluded that the postings were an "emotional, often incoherent" diatribe that no reasonable person would take seriously. She awarded $15,000.
The Court of Appeal disagreed, holding "that conclusion misjudged the target audience and the nature of the potential impact of the libel in the context of the Internet." The Court held further that the use of the internet made his blizzard of messages potentially more damaging and more believable because of the speed, scope and blunt , anonymous nature of statements on the web.
The Court posited:
"Is there something about defamation on the Internet - ‘cyber libel’, as it is sometimes called - that distinguishes it, for purposes of damages, from defamation in another medium? My response to that question is ‘Yes’."
"Thus, of the criteria mentioned above, the mode and extent of publication is particularly relevant in the Internet context, and must be considered carefully. Communication via the Internet is instantaneous, seamless, inter-active, blunt, borderless and far-reaching. It is also impersonal, and the anonymous nature of such communications may itself create a greater risk that the defamatory remarks are believed."
. . .
"She failed to take into account the distinctive capacity of the Internet to cause instantaneous, and irreparable, damage to the business reputation of an individual or corporation by reason of its interactive and globally all-pervasive nature and the characteristics of Internet communications"
The Court of Appeal increased the damages to $75,000 and awarded an additional $50,000 in punitive damages.
The Court also granted an injunction against the defendant. In spite of the fact that the defendant resided in B.C. and had not attorned to the jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal concluded that Ontario had jurisdiction because the there was damage to personal property, Barrick’s goodwill, in Ontario.
The Court quoted from Matthew Collins, The Law of Defamation and the Internet:
"The Internet represents a communications revolution. It makes instantaneous global communication available cheaply to anyone with a computer and an Internet connection. It enables individuals, institutions, and companies to communicate with a potentially vast global audience. It is a medium which does not respect geographical boundaries. Concomitant with the utopian possibility of creating virtual communities, enabling aspects of identity to be explored, and heralding a new and global age of free speech and democracy, the Internet is also potentially a medium of virtually limitless international defamation."
Ontario will take jurisdiction over internet libel, regardless of where the defendant resides and will grant injunctions against defendants outside the jurisdiction.
9:57:10 PM 
|
