Leenen v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. et al., (2000) 105 O.T.C. 91 (SC)

• Judge: Cunningham, J.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: April 20, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2000), 105 O.T.C. 91 (SC)

Leenen v. CBC (2000), 105 O.T.C. 91 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] O.T.C. TBEd. MY.031

Frans H.H. Leenan (plaintiff) v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Trish Wood, Nicholas Regush, Paul Webster, David Studer and Gary Akenhead (defendants)

(Court File No. 99908/96)

Indexed As: Leenen v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. et al.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Cunningham, J.

April 20, 2000.

Summary:

The Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (CBC) aired an episode of the television program The Fifth Estate entitled the "The Heart of the Matter". The program dealt with a heart medication called nifedipine. The program considered questions about the safety of the drug and the general process by which the Health Protection Branch of Health Canada approved drugs for patient use. The broadcast included clips from interviews that The Fifth Estate reporters had conducted with a number of people, including the plaintiff, a medical researcher employed as the Director of the Hypertension Unit of the Ottawa Heart Institute. The plaintiff sued the CBC, the show's producer (Regush), the researcher/interviewer (Webster), and the program host (Wood) for damages for defamation. He alleged that the statements broadcast from his interview and the innuendoes which arose from the presentation of those statements in the context of the program were libelous. The defendants claimed that the portions of the broadcast which referred to the plaintiff were not capable of constituting defamation. Alternatively, the defendants argued that any facts which did defame the plaintiff were true and any opinions which defamed him were fair comments based on true facts on matters of public interest. The defendants also contended that the broadcast dealt with issues of public importance and was protected by qualified privilege.

The Ontario Superior Court held that the defendants had defamed the plaintiff. The court awarded general damages of $400,000. The court awarded aggravated damages of totalling $350,000 ($100,000 against the CBC, $150,000 against the producer, and $50,000 each against the interviewer and program host). The court also awarded punitive damages totalling $200,000 (i.e., $50,000 each against the CBC, the producer, the interviewer and the program host).

Damage Awards - Topic 632

Torts - Injury to the person - Libel and slander - See paragraphs 189 to 221.

Damage Awards - Topic 2015

Exemplary or punitive damages - Libel and slander - See paragraphs 214 to 221.

Damage Awards - Topic 2406.1

Aggravated damages - Libel and slander - See paragraphs 210 to 213.

Libel and Slander - Topic 644

The statement - What constitutes defamatory statements - General principles - Disparagement of reputation - See paragraphs 40 to 91.

Libel and Slander - Topic 650

The statement - What constitutes defamatory statements - General principles - From words and video - Television broadcast - See paragraphs 40 to 91.

Libel and Slander - Topic 903

The statement - Innuendo - What constitutes - See paragraphs 40 to 91.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2861

Defences - Justification - General - See paragraphs 92 to 106.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2981

Defences - Qualified privilege - General - See paragraphs 107 to 119.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2983

Defences - Qualified privilege - When available - See paragraphs 107 to 119.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2995

Defences - Qualified privilege - Public duty - General - See paragraphs 107 to 119.

Libel and Slander - Topic 3106

Defences - Fair comment - Elements of fair comment - General - See paragraphs 120 to 136.

Libel and Slander - Topic 3107

Defences - Fair comment - Elements of fair comment - Honest expression of opinion - See paragraphs 120 to 136.

Libel and Slander - Topic 3114

Defences - Fair comment - What constitutes fair comment - See paragraphs 120 to 136.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4007

Malice - What constitutes malice - See paragraphs 137 to 188.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4063

Malice - As a bar to defence of fair comment or qualified privilege - Requirement of express or actual malice - See paragraphs 137 to 188.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4423

Damages - General damages - Measure of - Elements and considerations - See paragraphs 189 to 221.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4428

Damages - General damages - Measure of - Aggravated damages - See paragraphs 210 to 213.

Libel and Slander - Topic 4429

Damages - General damages - Measure of - Exemplary or punitive damages - When available - See paragraphs 214 to 221.

Cases Noticed:

Myers v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. et al. (1999), 103 O.T.C. 81 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 18].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1; 126 D.L.R.(4th) 129, refd to. [para. 38].

Hodgson v. Canadian Newspapers Co. et al. (1998), 68 O.T.C. 81; 39 O.R.(3d) 235 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 41].

Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd., [1963] 2 All E.R. 151 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 44].

Black v. Canadian Newspapers Co. (1991), 6 C.P.C.(3d) 324 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 44].

Colour Your World Corp. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. et al. (1998), 106 O.A.C. 279; 38 O.R.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Grossman v. C.F.T.O.-T.V. Ltd. (1982), 39 O.R.(2d) 498 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Vulcan Industrial Packaging Ltd. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (1979), 23 O.R.(2d) 213 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

Sutherland v. Slopes, [1925] A.C. 47 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 92].

Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd. et al. (1999), 250 N.R. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 108].

Botiuk v. Bardyn et al., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 3; 186 N.R. 1; 85 O.A.C. 81; 126 D.L.R.(4th) 609; 26 C.C.L.T.(2d) 109, refd to. [para. 112].

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

Teskey, Heacock and Ferguson v. Canadian Newspapers Co. and Ogilvie (1989), 33 O.A.C. 383; 68 O.R.(2d) 737 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 113].

Grenier v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] O.A.C. Uned. 295 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 114].

Slim v. Daily Telegraph Ltd., [1968] 1 All E.R. 497 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 121].

Hunt v. Star Newspaper Co., [1908] 2 K.B. 309 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 123].

Barltrop v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (1978), 25 N.S.R.(2d) 637; 36 A.P.R. 637; 86 D.L.R.(3d) 61 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 124].

England v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. and Clarkson, [1979] 3 W.W.R. 193 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 126].

Vogel v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1982] 3 W.W.R. 97 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 126].

Thomas v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. and Sanders, [1981] 4 W.W.R. 289; 27 A.R. 547 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 127].

O'Brien v. Salsbury (Marquis) (1889), 6 T.L.R. 133 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 135].

Boland v. Globe and Mail, [1961] O.R. 712 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 138].

Adam v. Ward, [1917] A.C. 309 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 139].

Arnott v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Sask.), [1954] S.C.R. 538, refd to. [para. 139].

Davies & Davies Ltd. v. Kott, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 686; 27 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 139].

Horrocks v. Lowe, [1974] 1 All E.R. 662 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 140].

Munro v. Toronto Sun Publishing Corp. (1982), 39 O.R.(2d) 100 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 145].

Pressler v. Lethbridge et al., [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. 663 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 182].

Ley v. Hamilton (1935), 153 L.T. 384 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 204].

Nagy v. Webb, [1930] 1 W.W.R. 357 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 205].

Thompson v. NL Broadcasting Ltd. (1976), 1 C.C.L.T. 278 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 205].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Raymond E., The Law of Defamation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), (Release 2), pp. 1-2 [para. 37]; 10-2, 10-17, 10-18 [para. 92]; 13-4 [para. 107]; 15-2 [para. 121]; 15-53 [para. 131]; 16-33, 16-34, 16-35 [para. 142].

Carter-Ruck, P.F., Libel and Slander (5th Ed. 1997), p. 109 [para. 123].

Counsel:

Richard G. Dearden and Alan P. Gardner, for the plaintiff;

Philip Tunley and David E. Leonard, for the defendants.

This action was heard before Cunningham, J., of the Ontario Superior Court, who released the following judgment on April 20, 2000.