Malhab v. Diffusion Métromédia CMR inc. et al., (2011) 412 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 15, 2009
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2011), 412 N.R. 1 (SCC);2011 SCC 9;89 CCEL (3d) 1;79 CCLT (3d) 165;412 NR 1;[2011] EXP 672;JE 2011-355;[2011] 1 SCR 214;[2011] SCJ No 9 (QL);AZ-50722037;328 DLR (4th) 385;EYB 2011-186410

Malhab v. Diffusion Métromédia CMR inc. (2011), 412 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2011] N.R. TBEd. FE.029

Farès Bou Malhab (appellant) v. Diffusion Métromédia CMR inc. and André Arthur (respondents) and Conseil National des Citoyens et Citoyennes d'origine Haïtienne, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Canadian Newspaper Association, Ad IDEM/Canadian Media lawyers Association and Canadian Association of Journalists (intervenors)

(32931; 2011 SCC 9; 2011 CSC 9)

Indexed As: Malhab v. Diffusion Métromédia CMR inc. et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.

February 17, 2011.

Summary:

The plaintiff represented Montreal taxi drivers of arabic and creole mother tongue. He instituted a class action for defamation against a radio broadcaster and his employer for racist comments directed at the group.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported [2006] R.J.Q. 1145; 2006 QCCS 2124, allowed the action and ordered that damages of $220,000 be paid to a non-profit taxi drivers association under the collective recovery mechanism found at arts. 1028 and 1034 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Que.). The defendants appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a decision reported [2008] R.J.Q. 2356; 2008 QCCA 1938, allowed the appeal. The plaintiff appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Abella, J., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The court quashed the damage award ordered in the Quebec Superior Court.

Libel and Slander - Topic 1

General - [See first Quebec Responsibility - Topic 4601 ].

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 4601

Particular examples - Defamation - General principles - General - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the development of the law of defamation in Canada and in "many democracies", including France and England - The court noted that courts were increasingly concerned about protecting freedom of expression and that the law of defamation was changing accordingly - See paragraphs 15 to 21.

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 4601

Particular examples - Defamation - General principles - General - The Supreme Court of Canada held that in Quebec, there was no specific form of action for punishing defamation - Actions in defamation came under the general system of civil liability established in art. 1457 of the Civil Code of Québec - The plaintiff was entitled to compensation if fault, injury and a causal connection were all present - Actions in defamation also brought Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms into play - They were based on interference with the right to the safeguard of reputation guaranteed under s. 4 - The Charter did not create a separate system of civil liability - The general principles of civil liability still served as a starting point for awarding compensatory damages for interference with a right - See paragraphs 22 and 23.

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 4604

Particular examples - Defamation - General principles - Injury - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the injury element in respect of actions in defamation brought under the general civil liability system of fault, injury and causal connection - The court indicated that the type of injury that defined defamation was damage to reputation - Damage to reputation was assessed objectively, from the perspective of an ordinary person - The ordinary person was the counterpart, for injury, of the reasonable person used to assess fault - Even though the standard was objective in both cases, it was preferable to use two different terms, reasonable person and ordinary person, because they were concepts that related to two distinct situations: assessing the conduct and assessing the effect of that conduct from society's perspective - The analysis would always be a two-step process: (1) whether a reasonable person would have made the impugned remarks in the same context; and (2) if not, and fault was thus established, the court must ask whether the remarks had decreased the ordinary person's esteem for the victim - See paragraphs 26 to 42.

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 4604

Particular examples - Defamation - General principles - Injury - The Supreme Court of Canada held that an action in defamation could succeed only if personal injury had actually been sustained by the plaintiff(s) - This requirement also applied where the defamatory remarks were made about a group - Three rules of Quebec law were applicable here: (1) To have the necessary interest to bring an action, a person must have sustained personal injury - Establishing interest was also required in the context of a class action; (2) The scheme of Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms confirmed the requirement of proof of a personal injury - In defamation law, this requirement also contributed to maintaining the balance between freedom of expression and the right to the protection of reputation under s. 4 of the Charter; and (3) the rules of civil liability in the Civil Code of Québec provided that injury was compensable if it was personal to the plaintiff - Defamation had to go behind the screen of the group's generality and affect its members personally - While the law did not punish the defamation of groups having no juridical personality, it did punish multiple individual defamation - See paragraphs 43 to 49.

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 4604

Particular examples - Defamation - General principles - Injury - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the factors used to determine whether personal injury had been sustained in respect of defamatory remarks directed at a group - These factors included: (1) the size of the group; (2) the nature of the group; (3) the plaintiff's relationship with the group; (4) the real target of the defamation; (5) the seriousness or extravagance of the allegations; (6) the plausibility of the comments and tendency to be accepted; and (7) factors related to the maker or target of the comments, the medium used and the general context, which could cause comments that appear to be general to be attached to certain persons in particular and defame them personally - See paragraphs 57 to 79.

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 4604

Particular examples - Defamation - General principles - Injury - Arthur was a Montreal radio broadcaster known for his "distasteful and provocative language" - Arthur broadcast the following comments about Montreal taxi drivers whose mother tongue was créole and arabic: [Translation] "Why is it that there are so many incompetent people and that the language of work is Creole or Arabic in a city that's French and English? ... I'm not very good at speaking 'nigger'. ... [T]axis have really become the Third World of public transportation in Montreal. ... [M]y suspicion is that the exams, well, they can be bought. You can't have such incompetent people driving taxis, people who know so little about the city, and think that they took actual exams. ... Taxi drivers in Montreal are really arrogant, especially the Arabs. They're often rude, you can't be sure at all that they're competent and their cars don't look well maintained" - The plaintiff, who represented the targeted taxi drivers, brought a class action suit against Arthur and his employer for defamation - The action was dismissed - The Supreme Court of Canada held as follows: "... having regard to all of the circumstances, I find that the group is of considerable size and is heterogeneous, that the characteristics attributed to the members of the group are individual and do not lend themselves well to extrapolation, and that the remarks are an extreme, irrational and sensationalist generalization. Accordingly, an ordinary person, while sensitive to such excessive remarks, would not in my view have formed a less favourable opinion of each Arab or Haitian taxi driver, considered individually. I therefore conclude that Mr. Arthur's comments, while wrongful, did not damage the reputation of each Montréal taxi driver whose mother tongue is Arabic or Creole. The plaintiff did not prove that a personal injury was sustained by the members of the group" - See paragraphs 80 to 92.

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 4610

Particular examples - Defamation - General principles - Procedure and evidence - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the impact of using the class action remedy in respect of a defamation action for comments directed at a group - The court held that the requirement of proving personal injury was not displaced in class action proceedings - The plaintiff still had to establish fault, injury and a causal connection - The class action procedure permitted the judge to draw inferences from the evidence, but he still had to be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that each element was present for each member - There could be no question of requiring each member of the group to testify to establish the injury actually sustained - Proof of injury would usually be based on presumptions of fact - Once the existence of personal injury by each member was established, the judge would focus on assessing the extent of the injury and choose the appropriate recovery method, whether individual or collective - See paragraphs 51 to 56.

Cases Noticed:

Prud'homme v. Prud'homme, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 663; 297 N.R. 331; 2002 SCC 85, refd to. [paras. 1, 100].

Néron (Gilles E.) Communication Marketing Inc. et al. v. Société Radio-Canada et al., [2004] 3 S.C.R. 95; 324 N.R. 98; 2004 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 1]; consd. [para. 104].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2011), 411 N.R. 23; 2011 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81, refd to. [paras. 17, 100].

R. v. Butler and McCord, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; 134 N.R. 81; 78 Man.R.(2d) 1; 16 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 17].

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. 17].

WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson - see Simpson v. Mair et al.

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. [paras. 19, 100].

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, consd. [para. 100]; refd to. [para. 19].

Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd. et al., [2001] 2 A.C. 127; 250 N.R. 1 (U.K.H.L.), refd to. [para. 20].

Jameel v. Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl, [2007] 1 A.C. 359; 362 N.R. 314; [2006] UKHL 44, refd to. [para. 20].

Theophanous v. Herald & Weekly Times Ltd. (1994), 124 A.L.R. 1 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Lange v. Australian Broadcasting Corp. (1997), 189 C.L.R. 521 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Lange v. Atkinson, [2000] 3 N.Z.L.R. 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), 376 U.S. 254, refd to. [para. 20].

BVerfGE 82, 272, June 26, 1990 (Stern-Strauß case), refd to. [para. 20].

BVerfGE 93, 266, October 10, 1995 (soldiers are murderers case), refd to. [para. 20].

Bladet Tromsø and Strensaas v. Norway (G.C.), No. 21980/93, ECHR 1999-III, refd to. [para. 20].

Colombani v. France, No. 51279/99, ECHR 2002-V, refd to. [para. 20].

Cass. ass. plén., July 12, 2000, bull civ. No. 8, refd to. [para. 20].

De Montigny v. Brossard (Succession), [2010] 3 S.C.R. 64; 408 N.R. 80; 2010 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 23].

Béliveau St-Jacques v. Fédération des employées et employés de service publics inc. - see St. Jacques v. Fédération des employeés et employés de services public Inc. (C.S.N.) et al.

St. Jacques v. Fédération des employées et employés de services public Inc. (C.S.N.) et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 345; 198 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 23].

Barrette et al. v. St. Lawrence Cement Inc. et al., [2008] 3 S.C.R. 392; 382 N.R. 105; 2008 SCC 64, refd to. [para. 24]; consd. [para. 108].

Québec (Curateur public) v. Syndicat national des employés de l'Hôpital St.-Ferdinand et autres, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 211; 202 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 24].

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Qué.) v. Montréal (Communauté urbaine), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 789; 319 N.R. 379; 2004 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 24].

Société Radio-Canada v. Radio Sept-Îles inc., [1994] R.J.Q. 1811 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Métromédia C.M.R. Montréal inc. v. Johnson, [2006] R.J.Q. 395; 2006 QCCA 132, refd to. [para. 26].

Sim v. Stretch, [1936] 2 All E.R. 1237 (H.L.), consd. [para. 35].

Chohan v. Casdky et al. (2009), 464 A.R. 57; 467 W.A.C. 57; 2009 ABCA 334, refd to. [para. 36].

Color Your World Corp. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. et al. (1998), 106 O.A.C. 279; 38 O.R. (3d) 97 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1998] 2 S.C.R. vii; 232 N.R. 398; 119 O.A.C. 397, refd to. [para. 36].

Botiuk v. Bardyn et al., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 3; 186 N.R. 1; 85 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 36].

Cherneskey v. Armdale Publishers Ltd. and King, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1067; 24 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. 36].

Ouellet v. Cloutier, [1947] S.C.R. 521, refd to. [para. 40].

Hervieux-Payette v. Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal, [1998] R.J.Q. 131 (Sup. Ct.), revd. [2002] R.J.Q. 1669 (C.A.), consd. [para. 41].

Jeunes Canadiens pour une civilisation chrétienne v. Fondation du Théâtre du Nouveau-Monde, [1979] C.A. 491 (Que.), consd. [para. 44].

Bouchard v. Agropur Coopérative, [2006] R.J.Q. 2349; 2006 QCCA 1342, refd to. [para. 45].

Cabay v. Fafard, [1986] J.Q. no 2823 (Sup. Ct.), affd. [1998] J.Q. no 1052 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Bisaillon v. Concordia University, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 666; 348 N.R. 201; 2006 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 52].

Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs et al., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 801; 366 N.R. 1; 2007 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 52].

Ortenberg v. Plamondon (1915), 24 B.R. 69 (Que. C.A.), consd. [paras. 60, 113].

Zhang et al. v. Chau et al., [2008] R.R.A. 523; 2008 QCCA 961, leave to appeal refused [2008] 3 S.C.R. xi; 392 N.R. 394, refd to. [para. 61].

Raymond v. Abel, [1946] C.S. 251 (Que.), refd to. [para. 61].

Cass. crim., January 29, 2008, Bull. crim., No. 23, refd to. [para. 62].

Cass. Crim., December 6, 1994, Dr. Pénal 1995, comm. 93, obs. M. Véron, refd to. [para. 62].

Cass. crim., January 16, 1969, Bull. crim., No. 35, refd to. [para. 62].

Cass. crim., November 22, 1934, Bull. crim., D.P. 1936.36.1, note M. Nast, refd to. [para. 62].

Knuppfer v. London Express Newspaper Ltd. - see Knupffer v. London Express Newspaper Ltd.

Knupffer v. London Express Newspaper Ltd., [1944] A.C. 116 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 63]; consd. [para. 112].

Butler et al. v. Southam Inc. et al. (2001), 197 N.S.R.(2d) 97; 616 A.P.R. 97; 2001 NSCA 121, refd to. [para. 63]; consd. [para. 111].

Bai et al. v. Sing Tao Daily Ltd. et al. (2003), 171 O.A.C. 385; 226 D.L.R. (4th) 477 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

O'Brien v. Williamson Daily News (1990), 735 F. Supp. 218 (E.D. Ky.), refd to. [para. 63].

Neiman-Marcus v. Lait (1952), 13 F.R.D. 311 (S.D.N.Y.), refd to. [para. 63].

Adams v. WFTV Inc. (1995), 24 Med. L. Rptr. 1350 (Fla. Cir. Ct.), affd. (1997), 691 So.2d 557 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.), refd to. [para. 63].

A.U.P.E. v. Edmonton Sun - see Alberta Union of Provincial Employees et al. v. Edmonton Sun et al.

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees et al. v. Edmonton Sun et al. (1986), 75 A.R. 253; 49 Alta. L.R.(2d) 141 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 63, 115].

Gauthier et al. v. Toronto Star Daily Newspapers Ltd. et al. (2004), 188 O.A.C. 211 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2005] 1 S.C.R. ix; 337 N.R. 192; 204 O.A.C. 192, refd to. [para. 64].

McCullough v. Cities Service Co. (1984), 676 P.2d 833 (Okla.), refd to. [para. 64].

Fawcett Publications Inc. v. Morris (1962), 377 P.2d 42 (Okla.), refd to. [para. 64].

Jackson v. TCN Channel 9, [2001] NSWCA 108 (AustLII), consd. [para. 65].

Trahan v. Imprimerie Gagné ltée, [1987] R.J.Q. 2417 (C.Q.), refd to. [para. 69].

Booth v. British Columbia Television Broadcasting System (1982), 139 D.L.R.(3d) 88 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

Cass. Crim., May 26, 1987, Bull. crim., No. 217, consd. [para. 71].

Cass. Crim., September 16, 2003, Bull. crim., No. 161, refd to. [para. 71].

Farrington v. Leigh, Times Law Report, December 10, 1987 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].

Arcand v. Evening Call Publishing Co. (1977), 567 F.2d 1163 (1st Cir.), refd to. [para. 72].

Algarin v. Wallkill (Town) (2005), 421 F.3d 137 (2nd Cir.), refd to. [para. 72].

Gross v. Cantor (1936), 270 N.Y. 93, refd to. [para. 72].

Farrell v. Triangle Publications Inc. (1960), 159 A.2d 734 (Pa. S.C.), consd. [para. 73].

Eastwood v. Holmes (1958), 1 F. & F. 347; 175 E.R. 758, consd. [para. 74].

Association des policiers de Sherbrooke v. Delorme, [1997] R.J.Q. 2826 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 78].

Sarrazin v. Duquette (1935), 41 R. de J. 365 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 84].

Gauthier et al. v. Toronto Star Daily Newspapers Ltd. et al., [2003] O.T.C. 602; 228 D.L.R.(4th) 748 (Sup. Ct.), consd. [para. 91].

Statutes Noticed:

Civil Code of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 1457 [para. 24]; art. 1607, art. 1611 [para. 47].

Authors and Works Noticed:

American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law (Second), Torts (2nd Ed.) (1977), vol. 3, § 564 [para. 63].

Bisonnette, Christine, La diffamation civile en droit québécois (1983), p. 11-14 [para. 15].

Brown, Raymond E., The Law of Defamation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1994) (1999 Looseleaf) (2010 Looseleaf Update, Release 2), pp. 5-45, 5-61 [para. 37].

Buron, Denis, Liberté d'expression et diffamation de collectivités: quand le droit à l'égalité s'exprime (1988), 29 C. de D. 491, pp. 497, 498 [para. 49].

Grellet-Dumazeau, Théodore, Traité de la diffamation, de l'injure et de l'outrage (1847), vol. 1, p. 1-10 [para. 15].

Jourdain, Patrice, Notion de faute: contenu commun à toutes les fautes, Juris-Classeur Responsabilité civile et Assurances (2002) fasc 120-1, no 106 [para. 35].

Mallet-Poujol, Nathalie, Diffamation et injures, in Beignier, Bernard, de Lamy, Bertrand and Dreyer, Emmanuel, Traité de droit de la presse et des médias (2009), p. 450 [para. 34].

Counsel:

Jean El Masri and Éric Dugal, for the appellant;

David Stolow, Nicholas Rodrigo and Marie-Ève Gingras, for the respondents;

Stefan Martin and Mélisa Thibault, for the intervenor, Conseil National des Citoyens et Citoyennes d'origine Haïtienne;

Guy J. Pratte and Jean-Pierre Michaud, for the intervenor, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation;

Christian Leblanc et Marc-André Nadon, for the intervenor, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Ryder Gilliland, for the intervenors, the Canadian Newspaper Association, Ad IDEM/Canadian Media lawyers Association and the Canadian Association of Journalists.

Solicitors of Record :

El Masri, Dugal, Montréal, Quebec, for the appellant;

Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg, Montréal, Quebec, for the respondents;

Fraser Milner Casgrain, Montréal, Quebec, for the intervenor, Conseil National des Citoyens et Citoyennes d'origine Haïtienne;

Borden Ladner Gervais, Montréal, Quebec, for the intervenor, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation;

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin, Montréal, Quebec, for the intervenor, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Blake, Cassels & Graydon, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenors, the Canadian Newspaper Association, Ad IDEM/Canadian Media lawyers Association and the Canadian Association of Journalists.

This appeal was heard on December 15, 2009, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following decision of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on February 17, 2011, and the following reasons were filed:

Deschamps, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Charron and Rothstein, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 94;

Abella, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 95 to 122.