Ian Burns

An Ontario Superior Court judge has concluded that a common law tort of Internet harassment should be recognized in the province as part of a decision which found a woman had engaged in “extraordinary campaigns of malicious harassment and defamation” online which was “carried out unchecked, for many years, as unlawful acts of reprisal.”

The decision in Caplan v. Atas 2021 ONSC 670 involves four separate cases brought by over 40 plaintiffs against Nadire Atas for the posts which she placed online on sites such as Reddit and Facebook, which for the most part do not monitor or control the content of postings. She largely posted anonymously or using pseudonyms, and Justice David Corbett wrote she “has carried on systematic campaigns of malicious falsehood to cause emotional and psychological harm to persons against whom she has grievances.”

“These include adverse parties in litigation, Atas’ own lawyers, and the lawyers and agents, relatives (including siblings, spouses and children) of these people, a former employer, its successor, owners, managers and employees of this former employer, and generally an ever-widening circle of victims, generally chosen to cause misery to Atas’ prime victims, those against whom she harbours festering grievances,” he wrote in his Jan. 28 decision. “As of the time that these motions were argued [in 2019], there have been as many as 150 victims of Atas’ attacks.”

The posts were traced to Atas after a long campaign by many of the plaintiffs. Atas, who was self-represented in the case, has been deemed a vexatious litigant and was cited for contempt of court as the case against her unfolded. According to court documents, she admitted to having authored some of the posts but denied she was responsible for the majority of them. She also argued the defamation claims were barred by the notice requirements under the provincial Libel and Slander Act and the court had shown bias against her, but these arguments were rejected.

Justice Corbett noted courts can order a defendant to remove offensive content on the Internet but such an order would not be effective in the case, as Atas has shown that she will not follow court orders, has posted on sites that have policies of not removing content on request and is destitute after filing for bankruptcy.

“[But] the court itself has an interest in seeing the overall conflict brought to an end,” he wrote. “The alternative order proposed by the plaintiffs … vesting title to the postings in them, with ancillary orders enabling them to take steps to have the content removed, will be more effective for them.”

And Justice Corbett concluded that a common law tort of Internet harassment should be recognized in Ontario “because Atas’ online conduct and publications seek not so much to defame the victims but to harass them.” He noted the Ontario Court of Appeal recently overturned a lower court ruling which recognized a common law tort of harassment (Merrifield v. Canada (Attorney General) 2019 ONCA 205), but “the facts of the case before me are very different.”

“The intent is to go beyond character assassination: it is intended to harass, harry and molest by repeated and serial publications of defamatory material, not only of primary victims, but to cause those victims further distress by targeting persons they care about, so as to cause fear, anxiety and misery,” he wrote. “The law’s response to Atas’ conduct has not been sufficient, and traditional remedies available in defamation law are not sufficient to address all aspects of Atas’ conduct.”

Plaintiff counsel Gary Caplan said he could not comment on the specifics of the case due to ongoing litigation against Atas, but said the decision’s importance was “timely in the sense there has been a lot of recent media attention brought to bear on the problems occasioned by either Internet harassment or Internet defamation.” Caplan’s brother and two sons-in-law were among the plaintiffs in the case after being targeted by Atas.

“How to deal with Internet harassment and defamation is a very big question and I am not sure there is a right answer,” he said. “One of the very obvious issues is what do you do with posters or people who access the Internet anonymously using aliases or fake names, and in terms of court process one of the challenges is trying to have the evidence necessary to show who is behind it.”

Howard Winkler of Winkler Dispute Resolution, who was not involved in the case, said it is an “extreme example of the kind of harm that can be done on the Internet by one person.”

“And as egregious as the facts are in this particular case, this kind of situation plays out every day on Facebook, Google, Twitter and other social media platforms where the lives and businesses of ordinary people are ruined by this kind of conduct,” he said.

Although the plaintiffs were able to achieve significant remedies against Atas, Winkler said the case doesn’t really deal with the central problem of online harassment and defamation — the fact that the social media platforms allow the material to be posted and largely refuse to do anything about it when complaints are raised. He said the Ontario government should adopt a recommendation made by the Law Commission of Ontario (LCO) in its 2020 report on defamation law in the Internet age to bring in legislation which allows for notice provisions of defamatory content to be passed on to social media platforms, and it imposes an obligation on them to take down the content if there is no response to the notice.

“If the province enacted that, and if they did it while recognizing this new tort of Internet harassment, then there would be a recourse available to ordinary people in situations like this,” he said. “Without that platform and that megaphone for speech, then the kind of conduct and behaviour that Ms. Atas engaged in would have been silenced. It was only when these social media platforms refuse to respond in a way that provides a proper remedy that the court has found it necessary to intervene.”

The Common law tort of Internet harassment should be recognized in Ontario: judge was published by The Lawyer’s Daily on February 8, 2021.

 

A B.C. court has given the green light to a defamation action against social media giant Twitter, with a legal expert saying the case has the potential to settle a major unresolved issue in Canada — what is the liability of social media companies for comments users post online.

Frank Giustra, the B.C.-based founder of entertainment company Lionsgate, brought a defamation action against Twitter for comments made about him online concerning his relationship with Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, the former U.S. president’s charity. He was targeted by online trolls who connected him to the debunked “pizzagate” conspiracy theory concerning a supposed Satan-worshipping pedophile ring consisting of many high-profile individuals from around the world. Posters also made comments about his involvement with the Boys Club Network charity, of which he is a founding patron.

Twitter asked the action to be dismissed, arguing California was a more suitable venue for any complaint against the San Francisco-based company. But Twitter would have no liability in the United States due to the freedom of speech provisions in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and s. 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which gives Internet platforms immunity for tort claims arising from the dissemination of content by third-party users.

But B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elliott Myers sided with Giustra, writing the court does have jurisdiction due to the billionaire’s close ties to the province and the fact that many tweets referred to B.C. and were published there (Giustra v. Twitter, Inc. 2021 BCSC 54).

“The presumption is that a defendant should be sued in only one jurisdiction for an alleged wrong, but that is not a simple goal to achieve fairly for Internet defamation,” he wrote in his Jan. 14 decision. “[Giustra] has gone far enough in demonstrating damage to his reputation here. I do not agree with Twitter, who argues that of all places in the world, the plaintiff’s reputation has not been harmed in B.C.”

In an online post, Giustra said that he believed “words do matter.”

“Recent events have demonstrated that hate speech can incite violence with deadly consequences,” he said on Twitter.

Howard Winkler of Winkler Dispute Resolution, who was not involved in the case, called the decision important because the issue of social media platforms’ liability for the content individuals post on their sites is undecided in Canada.

“I probably get on average two calls a week from people who are looking for some kind of advice about false or malicious postings about them or their businesses online,” he said. “And the reality is that for most people, until the issue of liability is resolved, they just don’t have the resources to take on these huge enterprises so they are really left without any remedy whatsoever.”

Winkler noted Giustra has the resources to overcome any obstacles that may be put in his path, and said if he is able to overcome those obstacles his action cou ultimately set the precedent in determining the social media giants’ liability in Canada.

“And if the courts find that there are circumstances under which the Facebooks and Twitters of the world are liable once they become aware of the defamatory nature of any content, then what is going to happen is one of two things — they will change their model and exercise some degree of control over the content once they receive complaints, or if they refuse to do that we will know that there is a remedy available,” he said.

Counsel for Twitter declined to speak on the case, and the company’s representatives did not respond to a request for comment. The Lawyer’s Daily also reached out to Giustra for comment but also received no response.

The Case could set precedent in determining social media giants’ liability for defamation: legal expert was published by The Lawyer’s Daily on January 26, 2021.

 

The Yukon Court of Appeal has sent a defamation case back to trial because of the inadequacy of the judge’s instruction to the jury, with a lawyer characterizing it as a “results-driven” decision as he felt the court did not like the original verdict.

The case in Senft v. Vigneau 2020 YKCA 8 deals with a defamation action brought forward by Angela and Michael Senft for allegedly defamatory comments made by Audrey Vigneau and Susan Herrmann. The Senfts had been involved in a dispute with a former friend, Daniele McRae, over the title to her house. The defendants claimed the Senfts were trying to force McRae out of her home and move her into a seniors’ residence, allegations which were posted on Facebook and in flyers sent out to the Dawson City community, as well as a GoFundMe page.

The Senfts commenced an action against Vigneau and Herrmann, who both later publicly apologized. At trial, Vigneau and Herrmann defended their comments by saying they were fair comment, but the Senfts replied by saying they had acted with malice in publishing the comments; a successful claim of malice would defeat any successful defence of fair comment.

The jury awarded damages to the Senfts, finding Vigneau and Herrmann had made the allegedly defamatory comments and acted with malice when publishing them. The jury made no finding with respect to the fair comment defence, and awarded the Senfts approximately $377,000 against Vigneau and approximately $432,000 against Herrmann.

But Justice Daphne Smith, writing for a unanimous Court of Appeal, set the awards aside and ordered a new trial. She ruled the trial judge erred in failing to determine whether the evidence adduced at trial raised a probability of malice before putting the question to the jury, and also failed to instruct the jury that express malice could not be considered unless they first determined Vigneau and Herrmann had established the defence of fair comment on a balance of probabilities and if established, in order to defeat the defence, that malice was Vigneau and Herrmann’s dominant motive in publishing the defamatory comments.

“In my opinion, as a matter of law, the judge was required to make a determination on whether the evidence adduced raised a probability of malice before instructing the jury on the issue,” she wrote in her March 27 decision. “His failure to do so constituted an error of law reviewable on a standard of correctness. In the circumstances of this case, this error could not be rectified after- the-fact on appeal.”

Justice Smith noted the lower court judge “properly recognized that, months after the trial had been completed, he could not undertake a detailed review and weighing of the evidence in order

to remedy the oversight of failing to make the required ruling.”

“This court is faced with the same problem. Where the issue of express malice raises a question of fact, an appellate court is generally not well-suited to step in and undertake a detailed evidentiary analysis as a matter of first instance in order to determine if the evidence raised a probability of malice,” she wrote. “This court is in no position to undertake a detailed review and analysis of the evidence for the purpose of determining if it raised a probability of malice, where the trial judge himself found the delay had made it impossible for him to undertake the task. In my view, the only way the error in this case can be rectified is to order a new trial.”

Howard Winkler of Winkler Dispute Resolution said the lesson of the decision is that “close attention has to be paid to the technical requirements of the law, and that if you fail to appreciate those technical aspects of the law then the decisions of the court are going to be open for review.”

“In terms of remitting it back for consideration [the Court of Appeal] had two choices — they could have sent it back to the trial judge or ordered a new trial. Given the statement by the trial judge that he could no longer, given the length of time, undertake a detailed review in weighing the evidence they were incapable of sending it back to the trial judge for reconsideration, so they were forced therefore to order a new trial,” he said. “However, the question remains of whether the Court of Appeal could have substituted its own decision and brought an end to the litigation, but I think given the circumstances of this case, given that it was a jury trial and jury verdict it probably would have been very difficult for them to do that.”

But Winkler said he was of the view that the Court of Appeal’s decision was very results-driven, in that he felt the court didn’t like the jury verdict and was inclined to find a basis to allow the appeal.

“You never know the decision-making process for a jury and that is why they are very difficult to overturn,” he said. “So, when I read this case, it was likely the jury was wrong in finding the

defendants were motivated by malice, which is why on the face of it, it appears to be an unfortunate decision. But what the court needed to do was find technical deficiencies in the judge’s decision-making and instructions to the jury to open the door to the opportunity of allowing the appeal.”

Counsel in the case did not respond to a request for comment. The Yukon Court of Appeal is made up of justices of the British Columbia Court of Appeal and justices from the Yukon Territory, Northwest Territories and Nunavut.

If you have any information, story ideas or news tips for The Lawyer’s Daily please contact Ian Burns at Ian.Burns@lexisnexis.ca or call 905-415-5906.

The Technical deficiencies opened door for Yukon Appeal Court to overturn defamation verdict: lawyer was published by The Lawyer’s Daily on April 9, 2020