THE CANADIAN DEFAMATION ACTION: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY Hilary Young* This article presents the results of a quantitative study of Canadian defamation law actions, focusing on reported decisions between 1973 and 1983 and between 2003 and 2013. It aims to contribute to debate about defamation law reform, to contribute to scholarly work in defamation law or in tort law and remedies more generally, and to inform lawyers who are involved in defamation litigation. Its findings include: that damages have almost doubled when adjusted for inflation between these two periods; that corporate defamation cases make up about a third of defamation cases; that plaintiffs established liability much less often between 2003 and 2013 than between 1973 and 1983; that punitive damages are awarded much more often to corporations than to human plaintiffs, and in higher amounts; that punitive damages were awarded in about a quarter of cases in both periods; and that the rate of liability is greater for publications on the internet (including email) than publications in other media. Cet article présente les résultats d’une étude quantitative des actions en diffamation intentées au Canada, mettant plus particulièrement l’accent sur les décisions publiées entre 1973 et 1983 et entre 2003 et 2013. Il vise à contribuer au débat sur la réforme du droit de la diffamation, ainsi qu’aux travaux de recherche spécifiques sur le droit de la diffamation ou plus généralement sur le droit de la responsabilité délictuelle et le droit en matière de mesures de réparation. L’article cherche également à guider les avocats impliqués dans des litiges en diffamation. L’article conclut notamment : qu’après ajustement pour tenir compte de l’inflation, le montant des dommages-intérêts accordés a presque doublé entre les deux périodes étudiées; que la diffamation entre personnes morales constitue le tiers des poursuites en diffamation; que les demandeurs ont réussi à prouver la responsabilité des défendeurs moins souvent pendant la période de 2003 à 2013 que pendant celle de 1973 à 1983; que des dommages punitifs sont accordés plus souvent aux demandeurs qui sont des personnes morales qu’aux personnes physiques, et que leur montant est généralement plus élevé; que des dommages punitifs ont été accordés dans un quart des actions en diffamation pendant chacune des deux périodes * Hilary Young is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of New Brunswick. Special thanks to Bohdana Tkachuk, Brianna Carmichael and Colleen Thrasher for their excellent research assistance. Thanks also to Nakisa Tamjidi for statistical analysis, to Bruce Ryder and Norman Siebrasse for their helpful comments and to the University of New Brunswick Faculty of Law and the Harrison McCain Foundation for their financial assistance. Data and statistical analyses can be made available by request to the author ([email protected]). 592 LA REVUE DU BARREAU CANADIEN [Vol. 95 étudiées; et que le taux de succès des demandeurs est plus élevé lorsqu’il s’agit de publications sur Internet (y compris dans des courriels ) que lorsqu’il s’agit de publications sur d’autres médias. Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................ 593 2. Methodology and Scope ................................................ 595 3. Results .................................................................. 596 A) Number and Type of Proceedings ...................................... 596 1) Number of actions .............................................. 596 2) Final decisions versus interlocutory matters ....................... 599 B) The Parties .......................................................... 599 1) Type of plaintiff: corporate and human ........................... 599 2) Types of corporate plaintiff ...................................... 601 C) Type of Publication . 602 1) Libel versus slander ............................................. 602 2) Journalistic versus non-journalistic publications ................... 603 3) New technology versus old technology publications ............... 604 D) How Often Liability was Established ................................... 605 1) General ......................................................... 605 2) Rates of liability for corporate versus human plaintiffs ............. 608 3) Rates of liability in cases involving journalism ..................... 609 4) Rates of liability for new technology v old technology publications ............................................ 611 E) Damages ............................................................ 612 1) Total damages .................................................. 612 2) General damages ............................................... 616 3) Aggravated damages ............................................ 616 4) Punitive damages ............................................... 618 5) Special damages ................................................ 619 6) Damages awards by type of plaintiff .............................. 621 7) Damages awards by type of publication: journalism ................ 623 8) Damages awards by type of publication: new versus old technology ..................................................... 624 F) Reasons why Liability was not Established .............................. 625 4. Conclusion .............................................................. 626 Appendix A: Methodology ................................................. 628 2017] The Canadian Defamation Action: An Empirical Study 593 1. Introduction This article presents the results of the first quantitative study of Canadian defamation actions. It examines the reported decisions between 1973 and 1983 and between 2003 and 2013, and includes a range of findings regarding rates of liability, quantum of damages, proportion of corporate versus human plaintiffs, proportion of libel versus slander actions, proportion of cases involving journalism, and proportion of cases involving new communications technologies. It aims to contribute to debate about defamation law reform and inform scholarly work in defamation law or tort law and remedies more generally. This study should also be of interest to practitioners who seek to be better informed about the risks and rewards of defamation litigation. The law of defamation aims to protect reputation while not unduly inhibiting free speech.1 It is an old tort that has changed relatively little over the centuries, despite changes in societal views about the importance of speech and despite radical changes in communications technology. A prima facie case is established if the defendant communicated about the plaintiff in a manner that would make a reasonable person think less of the plaintiff.2 The elements are often straightforwardly established and much of the free speech-protecting work of defamation law happens through defences such as truth (justification), fair comment, and qualified privilege.3 Defamation is an unusual tort: it is strict liability4 (although the new defence of responsible communication is grounded in a lack of fault5). Malice is presumed.6 Falsity is presumed.7 “[D]amages are presumed.”8 That is, plaintiffs need not prove actual injury to their reputations in order to be entitled to damages. Damages are at large and are meant to both compensate 1 See Raymond E Brown, Defamation Law: A Primer, 2nd ed (Toronto: Carswell, 2013) [Brown, Primer] at 9. 2 Ibid at 27, 29–30. 3 Ibid at 28. 4 Ibid at 29. Intent is required for the publication element, but only intent to convey—knowledge of the contents is not required. 5 The defence applies where publishing on a matter of public interest was responsible or done with diligence. See Grant v Torstar Corp, 2009 SCC 61 at para 126, [2009] 3 SCR 640 [Grant]. Diligence and responsibleness are fault standards. Thus, it is now possible to defend certain defamatory statements on the basis that the defendant acted without fault in publishing them. 6 Brown, Primer, supra note 1 at 293. 7 Ibid at 154. 8 Ibid at 321. 594 THE CANADIAN BAR REVIEW [Vol. 95 plaintiffs and vindicate their reputations.9 Unlike for personal injury claims, non-economic damages for defamation are not capped. Special damages are rarely sought or awarded.10 Defamation therefore differs from most torts, which require fault and proof of injury for compensatory damages beyond the nominal. In recent years, common law countries have been reforming their defamation laws. Australia and the UK have undertaken legislative reforms.11 In Canada, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that defamation law does not strike a proper balance between free speech and protecting reputation, and since 2008, it has been making incremental changes to defamation law to better protect expression.12 Furthermore, the Law Commission of Ontario is currently conducting a defamation law reform project.13 The argument for change tends to be based on principle (we are undervaluing free speech) or on anecdotal evidence (important speech is being chilled due to fear of litigation). For the first time in Canada, through this article, a wide range of quantitative data about defamation actions is presented, and can inform the policy debate. The study has several interesting results. It demonstrates that the average non-pecuniary damages award has almost doubled between the two periods studied—even when adjusted for inflation. It reveals that the percentage of corporate defamation cases (versus those brought only by human beings) is significant—about a third—but that the percentage has not increased