Detailed Examination of the Factors

• Author: David A. Potts; Erin Stoik
• Pages: 242-261

242

 24

Detailed Examination of the Factors

SPECIFIC LANGUAGE USED IN AN ALLEGATION

The specif‌ic language used in the allegation is an important factor of dam-

ages in defamation law: “The nature of the defamatory comment is the most

important element in assessing the amount of damages.”1

The quality and content of the expression and the motive of the defend-

ant are relevant considerations in the weighing of the public interests in

section 137.1(4)(b), unlike the consideration of “the public interest” in section

137.1(3).

1704604 Ontario Ltd v Pointes Protection Association, 2020 SCC 22 at paras 74–76:

[74] . . . [T]he term “public interest” is used dif‌ferently in s. 137.1(4)(b) than in s.

137.1(3). Under s. 137.1(3), the query is concerned with whether the expression

relates to a matter of public interest. The assessment is not qualitative—i.e.

it does not matter whether the expression helps or hampers the public inter-

est. Under s. 137.1(4)(b), in contrast, the legislature expressly makes the public

interest relevant to specif‌ic goals: permitting the proceeding to continue and

protecting the impugned expression. Therefore, not just any matter of public

interest will be relevant. Instead, the quality of the expression, and the motiv-

ation behind it, are relevant here.

[75] Indeed, “a statement that contains deliberate falsehoods, [or] gra-

tuitous personal attacks . . . may still be an expression that relates to a matter

of public interest. However, the public interest in protecting that speech will

be less than would have been the case had the same message been delivered

without the lies, [or] vitriol” (C.A. reasons, at para. 94, citing Able Translations

Ltd. v. Express International Translations Inc., 2016 ONSC 6785, 410 D.L.R. (4th)

380, at paras. 82–84 and 96–103, af‌f’d 2018 ONCA 690, 428 D.L.R. (4th) 568).

1 Raymond E Brown, Brown on Defamation, 2d ed, looseleaf (Toronto: Carswell, 2010).

Detailed Examination of the Factors | 243

[76] While judges should be wary of the inquiry descending into a mor-

alistic taste test, this Court recognized as early as R. v. Keegstra, 1990 CanLII

24 (SCC), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697, that not all expression is created equal: “While

we must guard carefully against judging expression according to its popularity,

it is equally destructive of free expression values, as well as the other values

which underlie a free and democratic society, to treat all expression as equally

crucial to those principles at the core of s. 2(b)” (p. 760).

Cheema v Young, 2021 BCSC 461

Subway Franchise Systems of Canada, Inc v Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2021 ONCA 26

Niu v Cao, 2020 ONSC 5407

Hobbs v Warner, 2019 BCSC 2196

Ontario College of Teachers v Bouragba, 2019 ONCA 1028

Bondf‌ield Construction Company Limited v The Globe and Mail Inc, 2019 ONCA 166

Amorosi v Barker, 2019 ONSC 4717

Canadian Standards Association v PS Knight Co Ltd, 2019 ONSC 1730

Papa v Zeppieri, 2018 ONSC 7068

Able Translations Ltd v Express International Translations Inc, 2016 ONSC 6785

Vile Language/Abuse

See the following cases:

• Cheema v Young, 2021 BCSC 461

• Nanda v McEwan, 2020 ONCA 431

• Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183 v Castellano,

2020 ONCA 71

• Montour v Beacon Publishing Inc, 2019 ONCA 246

• Levant v Day, 2019 ONCA 244

• Lascar is v B’nai Brith Canada, 2019 ONCA 163

• Paramount v Johnston, 2018 ONSC 3711

• Thompson v Cohodes, 2017 ONSC 2590

Personal Attacks

• 1704604 Ontario Ltd v Pointes Protection Association, 2020 SCC 22 at para

75; 1704604 Ontario Ltd v Pointes Protection Association, 2018 ONCA 685

at para 94

• Nanda v McEwan, 2020 ONCA 431 at para 59

• Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183 v Castellano,

2020 ONCA 71 at para 14