I was very surprised to read this article in Satuday’s Globe and Mail as I had not heard this ruling about slander by email was coming down the pipeline. Madam Justice Wailan Low of the Ontario Superior Court held against a person who did not appear in court to defend a case of slander by email and awarded damages against him which were acknowledged to likely be the person’s entire worldly wealth. The article canvasses the ruling, quoting from the text farily fully but as the text of the ruling is not on the usual web sites for court reports, I can’t tell of the report covers all the content. From the report, it appears that the email at the heart of the slander was one of those that say:
Please forword [sic] this to as many people and list as possible…
The email accused the Plaintiff, a pre-historic archeologist affilliated with Wilfred Laurier, of being a “grave robber”. The email created a chain reaction in which the false allegations were passed along to persons involved with the field of study.
What the article notes but does not really inquire about is the nature of the damages which were awarded which were acknowledged by the Court to be “equivalent to all or a significant portion of the defendant’s assets”. No other measure of the appropriateness of the damages were discussed in the article other than to note an equal amount – $125,000.00 – was awarded against a homeless person in June for defaming Barrick Gold Corp. That ruling is on the internet and was discussed here when it came out. It is unclear to me why the Globe and Mail describes the defendant as “homeless” when the Court of Appeal ruling describes him as follows:
Mr. Lopehandia is a businessman who resides in North Vancouver, British Columbia. He is an officer and director, and the directing mind of the defendant Chile Mineral Fields Canada Ltd., a British Columbia corporation with head offices in Vancouver and purporting to deal in precious-base metals and strategic minerals. It is a deemed fact in this case that the actions of Mr. Lopehandia at issue in the proceeding were undertaken by him in his personal capacity and in his capacity as an officer, director and representative of CMFCL.
Could it be that the court order and fighting the case has left him destitute? Will the same fate not arise from the ruling in this more recent case reported yesterday by the Globe? I suppose that the implication for now is that this stuff ought to be taken very seriously and sending out a slagging email should be low on each of our priorities. It is interesting to note that I am one a list of recipients of one of these circulating emails for a reason I cannot make out. The person who is sending them has a name identical to an old acquaintance but I have confirmed it is not him. Clearly, a dangerous practice.
All in all, good reason to remember your manners.