Mainstream Canada v. Staniford, 2013 BCCA 341
| Judge | Saunders, Tysoe and Bennett, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (British Columbia) |
| Case Date | May 28, 2013 |
| Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
| Citations | 2013 BCCA 341;(2013), 341 B.C.A.C. 162 (CA) |
Mainstream Can. v. Staniford (2013), 341 B.C.A.C. 162 (CA);
582 W.A.C. 162
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2013] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JL.046
Mainstream Canada, a division of EWOS Canada Ltd. (appellant/plaintiff) v. Don Staniford, and the said Don Staniford carrying on business as The Global Alliance Against Industrial Aquaculture (respondents/defendants)
(CA040316; 2013 BCCA 341)
Indexed As: Mainstream Canada v. Staniford
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Saunders, Tysoe and Bennett, JJ.A.
July 22, 2013.
Summary:
The plaintiff sued the defendant, seeking general and punitive damages for defamatory statements made by the defendant in various publications, as well as a permanent injunction restraining him from publishing similar words and images in the future.
The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2012] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1433, dismissed the action. The plaintiff appealed.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the Supreme Court's order dismissing the action and her costs order. The court granted the injunction and awarded the plaintiff general damages in the amount of $25,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $50,000. The court awarded the plaintiff special costs of the action and party and party costs of this appeal.
Damage Awards - Topic 2015
Exemplary or punitive damages - Libel and slander - See paragraphs 49 to 59.
Damages - Topic 1308
Exemplary or punitive damages - Libel and slander - See paragraphs 49 to 59.
Libel and Slander - Topic 641
The statement - What constitutes defamatory statements - General principles - General - See paragraphs 10 to 17.
Libel and Slander - Topic 3106
Defences - Fair comment - Elements of fair comment - General - See paragraphs 18 to 48.
Libel and Slander - Topic 4423
Damages - General damages - Measure of - Elements and considerations - See paragraphs 49 to 59.
Libel and Slander - Topic 4429
Damages - General damages - Measure of - Exemplary or punitive damages - When available - See paragraphs 49 to 59.
Cases Noticed:
Creative Salmon Co. v. Staniford, [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. A95; 2007 BCSC 62, revsd. (2009), 266 B.C.AC. 182; 449 W.A.C. 182; 90 B.C.L.R.(4th) 328; 2009 BCCA 61, refd to. [para. 3].
Grant et al. v. Torstar Corp. et al., [2009] 3 S.C.R. 640; 397 N.R. 1; 258 O.A.C. 285; 2009 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 10].
Roos v. Stent and Pretoria Printing Works Ltd., 1909 T.S. 988, refd to. [para. 24].
Simpson v. Mair et al., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 420; 376 N.R. 80; 256 B.C.A.C. 1; 431 W.A.C. 1; 2008 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 25].
WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson - see Simpson v. Mair et al.
Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd. v. Manock, [2007] H.C.A. 60, refd to. [para 26].
Kemsley v. Foot, [1952] A.C. 345 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 27].
Crookes et al. v. Newton, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 269; 421 N.R. 205; 310 B.C.A.C. 76; 526 W.A.C. 76; 2011 SCC 47, refd to. [para. 45].
Pallos v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [1995] 3 W.W.R. 728; 53 B.C.A.C. 310; 87 W.A.C. 310; 100 B.C.L.R.(2d) 260 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].
Lines v. Gordon et al. (2009), 267 B.C.A.C. 218; 450 W.A.C. 218; 306 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 2009 BCCA 106, leave to appeal refused (2009), 433 N.R. 393 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 52].
Lines v. W & D Logging Co. - see Lines v. Gordon et al.
Grabarevic v. Northwest Publications Ltd. (1968), 67 D.L.R.(2d) 748; 64 W.W.R. 283 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].
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. 53].
Garcia v. Crestbrook Forest Industries Ltd. (1994), 45 B.C.A.C. 222; 72 W.A.C. 222; 119 D.L.R.(4th) 740; 9 B.C.L.R.(3d) 242 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].
Barrick Gold Corp. v. Lopehandia et al. (2004), 187 O.A.C. 238; 71 O.R.(3d) 416; 239 D.L.R.(4th) 577 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Brown, Raymond E., Brown on Defamation: Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, United States (2nd Ed. 2013) (Looseleaf), vol. 1, c. 5, pp. 435 to 463 [para. 14].
Brown, Raymond, E., The Law of Defamation in Canada, vol. 6, c. 25, pp. 82 to 86 [para. 55].
Food and Agriculture Organization (U.N.) and the World Health Organization, Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on the Risks and Benefits of Fish Consumption, Report No. 978 (2011), p. 50 [para. 33].
Gatley, Libel and Slander (11th Ed. 2008), para. 36.4 [para. 14].
Hites, Ronald A., Foran, Jeffrey A., Carpenter, David O., Hamilton, M. Coreen, Knuth, Barbara A., and Schwager, Steven J., Global Assessment of Organic Contaminants in Farmed Salmon (2004), generally [para. 30].
Odgers on Libel and Slander (6th Ed. 1929), p. 166 [para. 27].
Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on the Risks and Benefits of Fish Consumption (2011), p. 50 [para. 33].
Staniford, Dan, A Big Fish in a Small Pond (2002), generally [paras. 35, 41].
Staniford, Dan, A Stain upon the Sea: West Coast Salmon Farming, Silent Spring of the Sea (2004), generally [paras. 35, 41].
Staniford, Dan, Sea Cage Fish Farming (2002), generally [paras. 31, 35].
Counsel:
D.K. Wotherspoon and G.R. Cameron, for the appellant;
D.F. Sutherland and D.L. Kripp, for the respondents.
This appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on May 28, 2013, by Saunders, Tysoe and Bennett, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The following reasons for judgment of the Court of Appeal were delivered by Tysoe, J.A., on July 22, 2013.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Soliman v. Bordman,
...Better Business Bureau Serving Eastern and Northern Ontario and Outaouais, 2018 ONCA 383 at para. 26; Mainstream Canada v. Staniford, 2013 BCCA 341 at para. 24-25, leave to appeal to S.C.C. ref’d [2013] S.C.C.A 372; WIC Radio v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40 at para. 31; Roos v. Stent and Pre......
-
Table of Cases
...219, 456 Magnotta Winery Ltd v Ziraldo (1995), 25 OR (3d) 575, 1995 CanLII 7122 (ON SC) .........xxvii Mainstream Canada v Staniford, 2013 BCCA 341 ..................................................................171 Maison Privé v Moghtadaei, 2020 CanLII 75615 (ON SC) ..........................
-
The Defence of Fair Comment
...has not always been successful. See, for example, the following cases in which the defence failed. Mainstream Canada v Staniford , 2013 BCCA 341 at paras 21 and 23: [21] In giving efect to the defence of fair comment, the trial judge made the following indings: (a) the statements in questio......
-
Hobbs v. Warner, 2019 BCSC 2196
...that the statement refers to the plaintiff: Mainstream Canada v. Staniford, 2012 BCSC 1433 at paras. 124-125; rev’d on other grounds, 2013 BCCA 341. [157] As well, in some circumstances, defamatory statements about a group may be defamatory of the group’s individual members, even though the......
-
Soliman v. Bordman,
...Better Business Bureau Serving Eastern and Northern Ontario and Outaouais, 2018 ONCA 383 at para. 26; Mainstream Canada v. Staniford, 2013 BCCA 341 at para. 24-25, leave to appeal to S.C.C. ref’d [2013] S.C.C.A 372; WIC Radio v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40 at para. 31; Roos v. Stent and Pre......
-
Hobbs v. Warner, 2019 BCSC 2196
...that the statement refers to the plaintiff: Mainstream Canada v. Staniford, 2012 BCSC 1433 at paras. 124-125; rev’d on other grounds, 2013 BCCA 341. [157] As well, in some circumstances, defamatory statements about a group may be defamatory of the group’s individual members, even though the......
-
Northwest Organics, Limited Partnership v. Fandrich, 2019 BCCA 309
...as defamatory words must, ipso facto, be capable of bearing defamatory meaning: Kazakoff at paras. 21-29; Mainstream Canada v. Staniford, 2013 BCCA 341 at para. [64] In Taseko Mines Limited, this Court described the applicable test of whether words bear a defamatory meaning as follows (at p......
-
Health Genetic Center Corp. o/a Health Genetics Center v. New Scientist Magazine, 2018 ONSC 7224
...[198] Grant v. Torstar, supra (fn. 34) at para. 31, Bernstein v. Poon, supra (fn. 148) at para. 103 [199] Mainstream Canada v. Staniford, 2013 BCCA 341 at para. 24 [200] Ibid at para. 24 quoting from Roos v. Stent and Pretoria Printing Works, Ltd., 1909 T.S. 988 at 998 a decision of the Tra......
-
Fish Farm Company Silences Activist Opponent With Defamation Order
...citations. The court also granted a permanent injunction muzzling Staniford's attacks on the fish farms: Mainstream Canada v. Staniford, 2013 BCCA 341. According to the court, the plaintiff, Mainstream, owns 27 salmon farm sites on the coasts of Vancouver Island, making it the second larges......
-
The Second Opinion: B.C. Court Of Appeal Clarifies Defence Of Fair Comment
...him to pay $75,000 in damages to one of the province's biggest fish farming operations. The key issue in Mainstream Canada v. Staniford, 2013 BCCA 341 was whether the defamatory material sufficiently referenced the "factual foundation" required to establish the defence of fair The appellant......
-
Canadian Internet Law Update - 2013
...Federation of Foster Parents Association, 2005 BCCA 398. No Fair Comment Defence for Website Defamation Mainstream Canada v. Staniford, 2013 BCCA 341, involved defamation claims regarding disparaging comments about the plaintiff's salmon farming business published in press releases and post......
-
Table of Cases
...219, 456 Magnotta Winery Ltd v Ziraldo (1995), 25 OR (3d) 575, 1995 CanLII 7122 (ON SC) .........xxvii Mainstream Canada v Staniford, 2013 BCCA 341 ..................................................................171 Maison Privé v Moghtadaei, 2020 CanLII 75615 (ON SC) ..........................
-
The Defence of Fair Comment
...has not always been successful. See, for example, the following cases in which the defence failed. Mainstream Canada v Staniford , 2013 BCCA 341 at paras 21 and 23: [21] In giving efect to the defence of fair comment, the trial judge made the following indings: (a) the statements in questio......