IAN BAILEY
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
July 18, 2008 at 10:52 PM EDT
VANCOUVER — A B.C. Supreme Court judge has awarded an Australian man $180,000 for suffering linked to an Internet campaign by a Nanaimo resident in a case observers have deemed notable for such twists as a sweeping injunction that prevents the B.C. resident from any further comment on the plaintiff.
“There's still a relatively small number of Internet law cases in Canada on the full scope of issues, so when we get some of these Canadian decisions, we're gradually building up a body of law,” said Michael Geist, a professor specializing in Internet law at the University of Ottawa.
Mr. Justice Douglas Halfyard ruled against Patrick Sullivan for 41/2 years of postings against Robert Griffin linked to a website called ASH where participants talk about suicide and depression. The site is described as a safety valve, with about 50 to 100 regular users and up to 500 people who occasionally visit.
Mr. Griffin, 43, is a resident of Sydney who formerly worked in telecommunications and became involved in a dispute with several posters to ASH. He contacted the RCMP in Nanaimo to complain about Mr. Sullivan, and police visited the B.C. resident to suggest he stop, the ruling said. Mr. Griffin eventually hired a lawyer and launched legal action in November, 2004.
“The statements published by the defendant accuse the plaintiff of having committed numerous acts of immoral and criminal conduct and of being a person of the worst possible character,” the judge wrote. “He also accuses the plaintiff of being mentally unsound. The language used by the defendant to convey these meanings is often profane in the extreme.”
Defamation lawyer Roger McConachie of Vancouver, commenting on the case, said the “one surprising thing” about Judge Halfyard's ruling is the permanent injunction he imposed.
“In light of his conduct …, it cannot be assumed that [Patrick Sullivan] will cease all efforts to publish new defamatory material or re-publish old defamatory material about [Robert Griffin],” the judge wrote.
The judge imposed a “very broad” ruling ordering that the defendant be restrained from publishing on the Internet, or any other method or medium, any defamatory statement referring to the plaintiff – whether by name, pseudonym, address, photograph or other means of identity. Mr. Sullivan is also being barred from using “anonymous remailing” to publish defamatory material and making “all reasonable efforts” to remove his Internet postings that are relevant to the case.
Observers said Friday that the outcome was consistent with other cases of Internet libel, but that this case was striking for several qualities, including the injunction.
“All the cases that come out are precedent-setting at this stage and, in particular the injunction that was issued was a pretty broad injunction, and the judge recognized that was needed to put an end to this kind of thing,” said Dan Burnett, Mr. Griffin's lawyer.
Mr. Griffin has been awarded $100,000 for general damages for libel, $50,000 for aggravated damages, $25,000 for breach of privacy, and $4,664 for special damages. Mr. Burnett said it was too soon to comment on his client's prospects of collecting from Mr. Sullivan, who was not available for comment Friday.
“The lesson [from the case] is that the Internet might seem like the Wild West,” Mr. Burnett said, “but there really is legal accountability if you step over the line.”