Barrick Gold Corp. v. Lopehandia et al., (2004) 187 O.A.C. 238 (CA)

• Judge: Doherty, Laskin and Blair, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: December 02, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2004), 187 O.A.C. 238 (CA);2004 CanLII 12938 (ON CA);71 OR (3d) 416;239 DLR (4th) 577;23 CCLT (3d) 273;31 CPR (4th) 401;[2004] OJ No 2329 (QL);131 ACWS (3d) 655;187 OAC 238;49 CPC (5th) 1

Barrick Gold Corp. v. Lopehandia (2004), 187 O.A.C. 238 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] O.A.C. TBEd. JN.009

Barrick Gold Corporation (plaintiff/appellant) v. Jorge Lopehandia and Chile Mineral Fields Canada Ltd. (defendants/respondents)

(C39837)

Indexed As: Barrick Gold Corp. v. Lopehandia et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Doherty, Laskin and Blair, JJ.A.

June 4, 2004.

Summary:

Barrick Gold Corp., an Ontario corporation, was one of the largest producers of gold in the world. Lopehandia, a British Columbia resident, asserted a claim regarding one of Barrick's mining properties in Chile. When Barrick refused to settle the complaint, Lopehandia conducted a campaign over the Internet which involved the posting of hundreds of false and defamatory statements concerning Barrick on various websites. Barrick commenced defamation proceedings. Barrick obtained default judgment with the motions judge finding that the impugned statements were defamatory and awarding $15,000 general damages. Barrick appealed the quantum of general damages and the motions judge's refusal to award punitive damages or to grant injunctive relief.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Doherty, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal. The court substituted an award of $75,000 general damages and $50,000 punitive damages and granted a permanent injunction against Lopehandia.

Damage Awards - Topic 632

Torts - Injury to the person - Libel and slander - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 4423 ].

Damage Awards - Topic 2015

Exemplary or punitive damages - Libel and slander - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 4423 ].

Injunctions - Topic 1448

Permanent injunctions - When granted - Defamation - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 4423 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 4423

Damages - General damages - Measure of - Elements and considerations - Lopehandia, a British Columbia resident, had a dispute with Barrick Gold Corp., one of the largest producers of gold in the world, over a mining claim - Barrick was an Ontario corporation - Lopehandia posted on the Internet hundreds of false and defamatory statements concerning Barrick - Barrick commenced defamation proceedings and obtained default judgment for $15,000 general damages - Barrick appealed respecting the relief granted - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The court held that the motions judge misapprehended the evidence and erred in principle in arriving at the $15,000 award and in not awarding punitive damages - The Court of Appeal substituted an award of $75,000 general damages and $50,000 punitive damages - The court also granted a permanent injunction restraining Lopehandia from disseminating, posting on the Internet or publishing further defamatory statements concerning Barrick or its officers, directors or employees - See paragraphs 28 to 67.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4429

Damages - General damages - Measure of - Exemplary or punitive damages - When available - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 4423 ].

Libel and Slander - Topic 4506

Damages - Libel - Defamation on the Internet ("cyber libel") - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that there a number of features of defamation on the Internet, sometimes called "cyber libel", that distinguished it for purposes of damages, from defamation through other medium - See paragraph 28.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4506

Damages - Libel - Defamation on the Internet ("cyber libel") - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed factors to be considered when determining what award is appropriate for defamation on the Internet - See paragraphs 28 to 53.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4506

Damages - Libel - Defamation on the Internet ("cyber libel") - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 4423 ].

Practice - Topic 8802

Appeals - General principles - Duty of appellate court regarding damage awards by a trial judge - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that appellate courts should not lightly interfere with damage awards, particularly the award of a jury or judge alone in a defamation case where damages are "at large" - The court noted that when examining a jury award, in the absence of errors in the charge to the jury, the appellate court on review is limited to a consideration of the amount in question - However, even though the bywords remain "caution" and "restraint" - an appellate court has more flexibility in reviewing an award of damages for defamation made by a judge alone than in the case of one made by a jury - The court stated that appellate courts should only reluctantly interfere with judge-alone defamation awards but they may do so where the judge has made an error in law, applied a wrong principle, seriously misapprehended the evidence or made an award that was inordinately high or low - See paragraphs 20 to 27.

Cases Noticed:

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 20].

Botiuk v. Toronto Free Press Publications Ltd. - see Botiuk v. Bardyn et al.

Botiuk v. Bardyn et al., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 3; 186 N.R. 1; 85 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 20].

Hodgson v. Canadian Newspapers Co. et al. (2000), 133 O.A.C. 174; 49 O.R.(3d) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Walker et al. v. CFTO Ltd. et al. (1987), 19 O.A.C. 10; 59 O.R.(2d) 104 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 21, 86].

Blackshaw v. Lord, [1984] Q.B. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning (1994), 71 O.A.C. 161; 18 O.R.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 2].

Brown v. Cole et al. (1998), 114 B.C.A.C. 73; 186 W.A.C. 73 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Safeway Stores Ltd. v. Harris, [1948] 2 W.W.R. 211 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Langille v. McGrath (2001), 243 N.B.R.(2d) 360; 631 A.P.R. 360 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Farrell v. St. John's Publishing Co. (1986), 58 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 66; 174 A.P.R. 66 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Royal Bank of Canada v. Battistella, [1994] O.J. No. 1717 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Dow Jones & Co. v. Gutnick, [2002] H.C.A. 56 (H.C. Aust.), refd to. [para. 30].

Vaquero Energy Ltd. v. Weir (2004), 352 A.R. 191 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31].

Waxman v. Waxman, [2004] O.J. No. 1765 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Safeway Stores Ltd. v. Harris, [1944] 4 D.L.R. 187 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Dingle, [1964] A.C. 371 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 52].

McElroy v. Cowper-Smith, [1967] S.C.R. 425, refd to. [para. 54].

Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co. et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595; 283 N.R. 1; 156 O.A.C. 201; 209 D.L.R.(4th) 257, refd to. [para. 56].

Tozier and Wife v. Hawkins (1885), 15 Q.B. 680, refd to. [para. 74].

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Greenpeace Canada et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 199 N.R. 279; 79 B.C.A.C. 135; 129 W.A.C. 135, refd to. [para. 76].

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson - see MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Greenpeace Canada et al.

Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd., [1991] 1 A.C. 191; 124 N.R. 175 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 76].

Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077; 122 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 76].

Muscutt et al. v. Courcelles et al. (2002), 160 O.A.C. 1; 60 O.R.(3d) 20 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

Pacific International Securities Inc. v. Drake Capital Securities Inc. et al. (2000), 145 B.C.A.C. 221; 237 W.A.C. 221; 194 D.L.R.(4th) 716 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

Cook et al. v. Pardcel, Mauro, Hultin & Spaanstra, P.C. (1997), 87 B.C.A.C. 97; 143 W.A.C. 97; 143 D.L.R.(4th) 213 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

Braintech Inc. v. Kostiuk (1999), 120 B.C.A.C. 1; 96 W.A.C. 1; 171 D.L.R.(4th) 46 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Barnett Lidsky, Lyrissa, Silencing John Doe: Defamation and Discourse in Cyberspace (2000), 49 Duke L.J. 855, pp. 862 to 865 [para. 32].

Carter-Ruck, P.F., and Starte, H.N.A., Carter-Ruck on Libel and Slander (5th Ed. 1997), pp. 197 [paras. 47, 49]; 198 [para. 47].

Castel, J.-G., and Walker, Janet, Canadian Conflict of Laws (5th Ed. 2004) (Looseleaf), p. 14-31 [para. 76].

Collins, Matthew, The Law of Defamation and the Internet (2001), c. 2, para. 24.02 [para. 1, footnotes 1, 5].

Harasim, Global Networks (1993), p. 9 [para. 30, footnote 4].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (1998) (Looseleaf), vol. 1, s. 13.5, pp. 13-20 to 13-21 [para. 77].

Mazey, Edward, The Enforcement of Labour Orders outside of the Jurisdiction of Origin (2002), 59 U.T. Fac. L. Rev. 25, pp. 37, 38 [para. 77].

Sharpe, Robert J., Injunctions and Specific Performance (2002) (Looseleaf Ed.), pp. 1-54 [para. 73]; 1-55 [paras. 73, 74].

Counsel:

Kent E. Thomson, for the appellant;

No one appearing for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on December 2, 2003, before Doherty, Laskin and Blair, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered on June 4, 2004, and the following opinions were filed:

Blair, J.A. (Laskin, J.A., concurring), - see paragraphs 1 to 83;

Doherty, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 84 to 97.