An Ontario judge ruled even an erroneous and negligent newspaper article does not justify receiving damages for libel..According to Blacklock’s Reporter, the ruling concerned a case involving a councillor in London, ON, who attributed his loss in the election to a story that wrongly accused him of a conflict of interest..“Despite the factual inaccuracies and carelessness with which the column was published, the column constituted political speech touching on the important issue of conflicts,” wrote Justice Martha Cook of Ontario Superior Court. The item was “an expression on a matter of public interest.”.William Armstrong, who had been a city councillor for 24 years, blamed his defeat in the 2018 election on an inaccurate article published in the local Our London newspaper..The story criticized Armstrong for not disclosing a conflict of interest when voting to construct a $17-million community centre near a property he owned..The newspaper quoted unnamed sources claiming Armstrong “would directly benefit from the zoning changes” since he owned property “that puts him in the notification zone of this new facility.” .The claim turned out to be incorrect. Subsequently, Our London published a retraction and issued an apology to Armstrong..Armstrong filed a $250,000 libel claim, but the publisher successfully requested the Court dismiss the lawsuit using Ontario’s 2015 Protection of Public Participation Act, an anti-SLAPP law designed to counter “strategic lawsuits against public participation.”.The Act allows defendants to seek dismissal of a claim if the alleged libel involved “an expression made by the person that relates to a matter of public interest.”.Justice Cook stated the newspaper article addressed matters of public interest, even if the details were unclear..“I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that there are grounds to believe that the column was actuated by malice,” wrote Justice Cook. .“There is no evidence before me upon which I can reasonably infer the necessary causal link between Armstrong’s electoral defeat and the column.”.The anti-SLAPP law allows defendants to request reimbursement for their expenses while defending against unsuccessful libel lawsuits. .In 2022, the Ontario Superior Court ordered former federal Liberal cabinet minister Joe Volpe to pay $383,878 in costs after he filed libel claims against 11 Toronto officials, including city councillors and school trustees..Volpe had filed a lawsuit against local authorities, seeking $30 million in damages, after they suspended advertising in his Italian-language newspaper Corriere Canadese..Volpe claimed officials boycotted the publication because of its firm Catholic stance on sexual minorities issues, characterizing local authorities as "terrorists" with a pro-gay agenda..“Parties are not free to abuse the judicial system without the threat of costs,” the Court wrote in the Volpe case.
An Ontario judge ruled even an erroneous and negligent newspaper article does not justify receiving damages for libel..According to Blacklock’s Reporter, the ruling concerned a case involving a councillor in London, ON, who attributed his loss in the election to a story that wrongly accused him of a conflict of interest..“Despite the factual inaccuracies and carelessness with which the column was published, the column constituted political speech touching on the important issue of conflicts,” wrote Justice Martha Cook of Ontario Superior Court. The item was “an expression on a matter of public interest.”.William Armstrong, who had been a city councillor for 24 years, blamed his defeat in the 2018 election on an inaccurate article published in the local Our London newspaper..The story criticized Armstrong for not disclosing a conflict of interest when voting to construct a $17-million community centre near a property he owned..The newspaper quoted unnamed sources claiming Armstrong “would directly benefit from the zoning changes” since he owned property “that puts him in the notification zone of this new facility.” .The claim turned out to be incorrect. Subsequently, Our London published a retraction and issued an apology to Armstrong..Armstrong filed a $250,000 libel claim, but the publisher successfully requested the Court dismiss the lawsuit using Ontario’s 2015 Protection of Public Participation Act, an anti-SLAPP law designed to counter “strategic lawsuits against public participation.”.The Act allows defendants to seek dismissal of a claim if the alleged libel involved “an expression made by the person that relates to a matter of public interest.”.Justice Cook stated the newspaper article addressed matters of public interest, even if the details were unclear..“I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that there are grounds to believe that the column was actuated by malice,” wrote Justice Cook. .“There is no evidence before me upon which I can reasonably infer the necessary causal link between Armstrong’s electoral defeat and the column.”.The anti-SLAPP law allows defendants to request reimbursement for their expenses while defending against unsuccessful libel lawsuits. .In 2022, the Ontario Superior Court ordered former federal Liberal cabinet minister Joe Volpe to pay $383,878 in costs after he filed libel claims against 11 Toronto officials, including city councillors and school trustees..Volpe had filed a lawsuit against local authorities, seeking $30 million in damages, after they suspended advertising in his Italian-language newspaper Corriere Canadese..Volpe claimed officials boycotted the publication because of its firm Catholic stance on sexual minorities issues, characterizing local authorities as "terrorists" with a pro-gay agenda..“Parties are not free to abuse the judicial system without the threat of costs,” the Court wrote in the Volpe case.
