Pineau sued the magazine Business in Vancouver for two articles, and KMI Publishing for one article—which was published in the online edition of Human Resources Magazine—both of which suggested Pineau had been involved in unproven allegations of financial misconduct.
Both publications discussed a lawsuit against Pineau launched by a former employer, and falsely stated there were irregularities in the use of a company credit card.
“The purpose of an award of general damages is to compensate the plaintiff for the loss of reputation and injury to the plaintiff’s feelings, to console the plaintiff and to vindicate the plaintiff so their reputation may be re-established,” said Court of Appeal Justice Karen Horsman. “In a libel action general damages are presumed from the publication of a false statement.”
Pineau was described by the judge at the initial trial as “an ethical and honest person who conducts himself with integrity and courtesy.” The allegations of misusing a company credit card were “simply not in keeping with Mr. Pineau’s character,” wrote the Court.
Reputation Damage
The trial judge accepted that the “blow to Mr. Pineau’s reputation for ethics and integrity” was particularly damaging to him given the sensitive nature of his work, said the appeal court. The trial judge also found the nature of the libel to be significant. Following the finding of liability, there was a five-day trial on damages, which is what Pineau appealed.The trial judge made a number of errors, according to the court of appeal. The further libel is spread online, the more a publisher should be assessed in damages, said the court.
“The extent of the circulation of a newspaper or newsletter may be taken into account in the assessment of damages for defamation,” wrote Justice Karen Horsman. “The scope of viewership may be inferred from evidence of the number of subscribers.” There was no need to prove “how many subscribers actually read the defamatory content,” added Horsman.
The trial judge was found to have not considered the full circulation of a newsletter sent to about 32,000 subscribers. The Court said there was no evidence to show that the defamatory article reached a limited audience. The appeal court also decided the trial judge relied on irrelevant factors in considering the damages award, and these needed to be reassessed.
According to Blacklock’s Reporter, libel damages of six figures are rare. Most average less than 63,000, with a “small number of cases per year,” according to the Canadian Bar Review in 2017.
The largest award for libel damages in Canadian history was $3 million, paid in 2008 after a 47-year-old Ottawa pilot was falsely accused of allegedly drinking before a flight.
In 1995, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision to award $1.6 million to a Toronto crown prosecutor who had been defamed by the Church of Scientology.
Pineau and his legal counsel were unable to provide comment by press time.
