Claim based on newspaper articles is not defamation, Court rules

C
LAIMBASEDONNEWSPAPERARTICLESISNOTDEFAMATION,COURT
RULES

LAURENTCARRIÈREANDMARIE-ÈVEROCK*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP
L
AWYERS,ANDPATENTANDTRADE-MARKAGENTS

PRECIS:TheOntarioSuperiorCourtofJusticehasdismissedamotiontostrikeout
astatementofclaimregardingarticlespublishedinTheGlobeandMail.Although
thedefendantsarguedthatthestatementofclaimwasadisguiseddefamation
action,thecourtheldthattheplaintiffs’claimsbasedonthetortsofdeceitand
invasionofprivacycouldstandalone.

InNitsopoulosv.Wong,[2008CanLII45407(ONS.C.)],theSuperiorCourtof
JusticeofOntariodismissedDefendants’MotiontoStrikeOutPlaintiffs’Statement
ofClaim.
Defendants,thejournalistJanWongandthepublisherCTVGlobemediaPublishing
Inc.,presentedthisMotiononthebasisthattheStatementofClaimwasa
defamationactiondisguisedassomeothercauseofactionandwasnotrevealinga
reasonablecauseofaction.
Whatwerethefacts?
InApril2006,TheGlobeandMailpublishedaseriesofarticlesauthoredbyJan
Wongcalled“Maidforamonth”.Wongtellsofherexperienceasamaidfora
cleaningserviceinToronto.Theactionarisesfromthepublicationofasecond
articlewhichcontainsdescriptionsofaparticularhome.Theportrayalwasprecise
enoughtoidentifyplaintiffs’home.

Section6oftheOntarioLibelandSlanderActprovidesthatanactionforlibelina
newspaperisprescribedthreemonthsafterthedefamationhascometothe
knowledgeofthevictim.Inthecaseatbar,Plaintiffs’actionwasinstituted22
monthsaftertheimpugnedpublication;thereforeplaintiffs’framedtheircauseof
actionasonefordeceitandinvasionofprivacy.

©CIPS,2008.*Lawyerandtrade-markagent,LaurentCarrière,isaseniorpartnerwithLEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP
amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentandtrademarkagents.IanaAlexovaisanarticling
studentwiththefirm.Publishedinthe2008-09-11issueofWorldMediaLawReport.Publication
328.053.

2
TheissueofthisMotioncomesdowntotwoquestions:
1-ShouldtheStatementofClaimbestruckonthebasisthatitisa
disguiseddefamationaction?
2-ShouldtheStatementofClaimbestruckbecauseitdoesnot
discloseareasonablecauseofaction?
DefendantsclaimsthattheharmcausedtoPlaintiffswasonlyaresultofthe
publicationofthearticle.Theyalsoclaimthatthereisnootherpossiblecauseof
actionbecausenodamagesoriginatedfromadeceitoraninvasionofprivacy.The
GlobeandMailsubmittedthattheharmcausedtoPlaintiffsshouldbecharacterised
exclusivelyhasadefamation,ofwhichthedefencefallunderbySection6ofLibel
andSlanderAct.Theyalsoallegedthatdefamationcancauseprejudiceonlytotheir
reputation.
Evenifplaintiffsdidn’tmentionthewords“invasionofprivacy’’,theydidstateintheir
letterofdemand:“toMs.Wong’sknowledge,ourclientwouldnothavepermitted
entryintohishomebyherhadhebeenawareofthetruenatureandpurposeofher
attendanceathishome.Inthecircumstances,Ms.Wonghascommittedactsof
trespassanddeceitasagainstourclient.”
Plaintiffs,takingtheoppositepositiononthismotion,allegedthatTheGlobeand
Mailistryingto“dressup”plaintiffs’legitimatetortclaimsasadefamationaction.
IntheSuperiorCourt’sview,plaintiffs’claimsbasedontortsofdeceitandinvasion
ofprivacydidstandalone.ThedamagesallegedinPlaintiffs’StatementofClaim
werenotonlydamagestotheirreputationandwerenotsolelycausedbythe
publicationofthearticle.TheCourtthereforerejectedTheGlobeandMailargument
thatdamagesclaimedinthiscaseonlyoriginatedfromdefamationandshouldarise
fromLibelandSlanderAct.
Asforthereasonablecauseofaction,theCourtdecidedthatthisactionshouldnot
bedismissed.Infact,Plaintiffs’argumentwithrespecttothetortofdeceitmakesit
unlikelytoconcludethatthoseclaimsweredoomedforfailure,atleastbefore
hearingevidence(whiciwasnotpermissibleonsuchamotion).TheJudgealso
observedthatactionsbasedoninvasionofprivacyarenotprohibitedunderany
Ontariolaws.
Finally,theCourtremarksthatthiscaseshouldbeconsideredonafullevidentiary
record,anditshouldnotbedismissedonthebasisofhavingnochanceofsuccess.
Result:Defendants’motiondismissedwithcosts.

3

ROBIC,ungroupedavocatsetdagentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelle
danstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marques
decommerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsdorigine;droitsdauteur,
propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdelartisteinterprète;informatique,
logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentions
végétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligente
etaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicated
since1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:
patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-
trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand
businesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;
duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLULINVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDE
LAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
Trade-marksofLEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP(“ROBIC”)

4