The British Columbia Supreme Court has mandated that a B.C. contractor must pay out $1.5 million in damages for engaging in a series of defamatory actions against a business competitor.
The ruling stands as one of the most substantial payouts for online defamation in Canada to date, according to Blacklock’s Reporter.
“The most broadly circulated [defamatory] publications were made on websites and blogs,” wrote Justice Andrew Mayer. “It is arguable that defamation carried out over the internet may be more damaging to reputation than defamation carried out by other means because of the possibility that the publications will be seen by a broader audience.”
Valley Traffic Group Ltd., located in Langley, B.C., must pay $1.5 million in punitive damages and expenses to its competitor Ansan Traffic Group Ltd. and its director, Raoul Malak.
Evidence presented in court showed that, during 2012 and 2013, Valley Traffic engaged in defamatory conduct against Ansan Traffic Group Ltd. and its director, Raoul Malak, falsely depicting them as a front for a criminal organization and sharing images online that portrayed Mr. Malak as a prison convict. The “campaign of defamation” occurred while both companies were vying for a profitable government contract.
“We were under attack,” Mr. Malak testified. “I knew this was going to harm us for a long time to come,” he added. “It was absolutely shocking. I am still shocked.”
“People said if it’s written, it must be true,” testified Mr. Malak. “I think that’s the assumption we were dealing with, that we were very worried some procurement managers or directors would be influenced by that.”
“When you are accused of being a drug dealer, or a money launderer, or a pimp, it’s no joke,” he testified. “These are very serious allegations.”
Evidence in court demonstrated that Valley Traffic had shared articles to fake corporate websites claiming the Ansan Traffic Group was engaged in organized crime, bribery, and kick-back schemes, among other illegal activities. It also emailed those links to business contacts and other websites with comments like, “I just saw this—unreal!” and “juicy stuff!”
Managers from Valley Traffic used a false identity to send an email to the former B.C. premier, Christy Clark. The message, labelled as “private and confidential,” reiterated their defamatory claims and asserted, “I write you today to blow the whistle on a potential scandal of very large magnitude.”
“Harm to reputation is presumed from the mere publication of a defamatory falsehood,” wrote Justice Mayer. “Such harm arises even though it is not shown that a single person familiar with the plaintiff has read the defamatory words or, if they read them, did not believe that they were true.”
A 10-year legal battle preceded the damage award.
While Canadian courts have granted larger libel payouts, these instances have been cases of television broadcast libel rather than posts to the internet. An example of this is a 2022 ruling by the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench where the CBC was instructed to pay $1.95 million in damages and expenses to a Winnipeg investment adviser who was unjustly defamed for unethical behaviour.
The most substantial payout so far—amounting to $3 million—was in 2008 in a case involving Sky Service Airlines. The airline had defamed a terminated pilot, calling him a drunk.
Legal filings showed Sky Service perpetuated its allegation by sharing the false information with competing airlines in an attempt to dissuade them from hiring the pilot.
