The Defendant's Response: Action for Defamation

• Author: Nathalie Des Rosiers; Louise Langevin
• Pages: 317-325

Chapter

7

The

Defendant's Response:

Action

for

Defamation

542.

The

Problem

- In the

United

States,1

Canada,2

and

Quebec,3

some

men who

have been tried

in

criminal court

for

acts

of

sexual

or

spousal abuse,

or

against whom such complaints have been

filed,

will

respond

by

suing

the

victim

for

defamation.

A

lawsuit

of

this

type

can

arise

at two

different

points

in

time.

First,

the

presumed

abuser

can file

suit

as

soon

as he

knows

that

the

victim

has filed a

complaint

or has

launched proceedings.

For

example,

the

presumed

abuser

can file a

cross-claim

in

response

to the

victim's action

for

extracontractual liability. This action

for

defamation

is

often

meant

to

intimidate

the

victim:

she

must

cope

with another

trial,

the

costs,

the

examination,

and so on. She may

decide

to

abandon

her

crimi-

nal or

civil complaint,

or to

settle

out of

court

in

order

to

avoid

these

upsets.

The

presumed abuser

may

also

institute

an

action

for

defamation

against

the

victim

once

the

criminal

or

civil action

has

been

dismissed.

The

victim's lawyer,

as

well

as the

victim,

may

also

1. See

Eric

T.

Cooperstein, "Protecting Rape Victims

from

Civil

Suits

by

Their

Attackers," (1989)

8 Law and

Inequity

279.

2.

See

Newhook

v.

Smith

and

Mackenzie (1993),

120

N.S.R. (2d)

228;

332

A.P.R.

228

(N.S.

S.C.), action

for

defamation dismissed; Khalsa

v.

Bhullar,

[1992]

B.C.J.

No. 378

(B.C. S.C.)

(Q.L.),

action

for

defamation dismissed; Pangiligan

v.

Chaves

and

Chaves (1988),

52

Man.

R.

(2d)

86

(Q.B.),

action allowed;

Frigault

v.

Bartram,

MacNeil

and

Goss

(1995),

167

A.R.

216

(B.R.),

action

for

defamation

dismissed;

Swerid

v.

Swerid

(1995),

103

Man.

R.

(2d)

81

(Q.B.),

action dismissed; Karpati

v.

Sherman,

[1997]

O.J.

No.

3303

(Ont. Gen. Di

(Q.L.),

action

for

defamation allowed,

the

plaintiff received

$7,938

in

general

damages, $15,000

in

special damages,

and

$10,000

in

punitive damages;

Strong

v.

M.M.P., (1997),

31

C.C.E.L.

(2d)

47, 50

O.R. (3d)

70

(Ont.

C.A.)

action dismissed;

L.E.

v.

W.P.,

[1998]

B.C.J.

No.

1250

(B.C. S.C.)

(Q.L.),

action

allowed;

M.J.M.

v.

D.J.M., [1998]

S.J.

No. 668

(Sask.

Q.B.)

(Q.L.),

affd

b

[2000]

S.J.

No. 300

(Sask. C.A.)

(Q.L.),

action dismissed.

3.

See

Nadeau

v.

Beausoleil-Lefrancois,

[1994]

R.R.A.

798

(Que.

Sup.

Ct.);

Walker

v.

Singer, [1997]

R.R.A.

175

(Que. Sup.

Ct.);

Michaud

v.

Quebec

(Procureu

general),

[1998]

A.Q.

No.

2399

(Que. Sup. Ct.)

(Q.L.); Andre

v.

Quebec

(Procureur

general), [1999]

J.Q.

No.

4213

(Que.

Sup. Ct.)

(Q.L.);

D.F.

v.

AS.,

[2001]

Q.J.

No.

3273 (Que.

Sup. Ct.)

(Q.L.).

317