Content area
Full Text
(2004), 2004 CarswellOnt 2258, 23 C.C.L.T. (3d) 273, 239 D.L.R. (4th) 577, 31 C.P.R. (4th) 401, [2004] O.J. No. 2329 (C.A.)
This decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal was significant because it analyzed the nature of Internet defamation. The decision examined the impact of this medium for the purposes of assessing the quantum of damages awarded, and the appropriateness of asserting jurisdiction in requests for injunctive relief.
FACTS
Jorge Lopehandia alleged that Barrick Gold Corporation ftaudulently obtained rights to a mining property of which he was the rightful owner. Following Barrick's refusal to pay Lopehandia a demanded sum of $3 million to settle the complaint, the defendant embarked upon what counsel for the appellant desctibed as "[a] systematic, extensive and vicious campaign of libel" over the Internet.
The campaign consisted of e-mails and messages posted on Internet discussion boards accusing Barrick of a long list of criminal misconduct, including allegations of fraud, manipulation of world gold prices, genocide and crimes against humanity. There was evidence that Mr. Lopehandia's numerous postings were read by users worldwide, including those in Ontario.
Barrick brought an action against Lopehandia in Ontario. It was not defended. The motions judge granted judgment, finding that the impugned statements were defamatory and awarded general damages in the amount of $15,000. However, she dismissed the claim for punitive damages saying that Mr. Lopehandia's statements "come across as a diatribe or a rant" and were unlikely to be taken seriously by a reasonable reader. She also dismissed the claim for injunctive relief, holding that she had no basis for asserting jurisdiction over the defendant, a British Colombia resident.
Barrick appealed the quantum of general damages and the refusal to award any punitive damages or grant injunctive relief.
FINDINGS
A....