Defamation, Reputation and Privacy
Practice

Practice Profile

Alexander Holburn Beaudin & Lang LLP’s Defamation, Reputation and Privacy Practice assists individuals, businesses and institutions solve problems, protect reputations, and defend litigation arising out of the handling and distribution of information.

We respond to the needs of clients engaged in print and electronic media and publishing. We work with the private sector and have represented municipal governments, hospitals, universities, school boards, professional regulatory bodies, and a broad range of other institutional clients involving serious communications and media issues.

Where our clients’ interests mandate it, we litigate. Each of our practitioners has an extensive depth of trial and appeal experience. However, a large part of our practice focuses on risk management, both with respect to protecting our clients’ reputations and in resolving problems when the expense of litigation can be avoided.

We appreciate that this area of law frequently requires quick action, and we respond accordingly. Our three practitioners in our Defamation Practice – David Gooderham, David McKnight and Karen Zimmer – ensure that our clients have immediate access to the advice they need.

Risk Management

A large part of our defamation practice is preventative.

We frequently review publications to assess the merits and likelihood of action, and recommend strategies to minimize the risks of being sued and to strengthen any defence. We work with our clients, and where available, their media advisors and professional communications staff, to implement internal risk management practices and advise on the handling of sensitive information.

Members of our team regularly assist clients to achieve quick resolution of defamation-related disputes where litigation is not appropriate. Where warranted, we are familiar with handling retractions, clarifications and apologies.

Reputation

We are frequently retained by our clients to uphold their most valuable assets, their reputations.

We have experience in compelling publishers to remove infringing materials from the internet, including social media forums such as blogs and Facebook. We strive to remedy damage done by demanding and crafting effective apologies.

Our Recent Supreme Court and Court of Appeal Decisions

Wiebe v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Bouchard et al., (2008) 58 C.C.L.T. (3d) 114 (B.C.S.C.): We successfully defended a libel action brought against a university professor and her research assistants with respect to a research report published by the Federal Government. The Report was also published on a government website. The research report included an analysis and commentary about websites on the internet that portrayed women in negative ways. The research report included a description that a particular website was a “hate site”. A libel claim against the authors of the research report was dismissed at trial. The court ruled that the content of the research report was defensible as fair comment on a matter of public interest. A subsequent appeal by the claimant was struck out.

Hunter v. Chandler, [2010] B.C.W.L.D. 8027 (S.C.): We defended a North Saanich Councillor who was facing two allegations of slander. We successfully defended one of the allegations of slander by establishing the occasion was one of qualified privilege. This was also one of the first cases that considered the application of the new defence of responsible communications set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in the decisions of Grant v. Torstar Corp. and Quan v. Cusson.

Bajwa v. British Columbia Veterinary Medical Association et al., [2008] B.C.J. No. 905 (S.C.): We successfully defended the British Columbia Veterinary Medical Association (“BCVMA”) and professional committee members and staff in several Supreme Court actions brought by 16 plaintiffs. The litigation included defamation claims against the BCVMA and its representatives, including claims in which the plaintiffs alleged that the BCVMA defamed them by publishing on their website information concerning pending discipline complaints. At issue was whether the defence of absolute or qualified privilege applied. The Plaintiffs discontinued their action shortly before trial and we obtained orders for increased costs and orders barring the plaintiffs from bringing similar claims in the future.

Lane v. Board of School Trustees of School District 68 (Nanaimo-Ladysmith), [2006] B.C.J. No. 129 (S.C.): Our team successfully defended a local School Board and four school trustees in a claim by a former school Superintendent arising out of extensive media coverage involving a controversy in the local media. The claim was dismissed in its entirety after a lengthy trial, and with a costs award in favour of our clients for approximately $700,000. In answer to the multiple claims of defamation the court applied the defences of qualified privilege, fair comment and justification.

Lions Gate Marketing Company Ltd. v. Used Car Dealers Association of Ontario (2005), 41 B.C.L.R. (4^th) 243 (C.A.): This was a successful appeal on behalf of the defendant Ontario based trade association from a trial ruling that information in a newsletter distributed by the association was defamatory. In this case we appeared as co-counsel with the association’s lead counsel from Ontario. In defamation matters we often work with clients and lawyers from other jurisdictions. The Court of Appeal dismissed the claim against our client. The outcome in this case illustrates the importance and sometimes subtle distinction between defamatory and non-defamatory meanings.

P.G. Restaurant Ltd. v. Northern Interior Regional Health Board et al, [2004] B.C.J. No. 294 (S.C.), [2006] B.C.J. No. 280 (C.A.): Our team successfully defended a regional health board in an action commenced by a restaurant after the local newspaper published an article entitled “Vomit serves up virus at buffet.” The case was dismissed against our clients as it was found that the statements made by our clients did not identify the restaurant, and alternatively were protected by the defences of fair comment, qualified privilege, and justification.

Carter v. B.C. Federation of Foster Parents Association et al, [2004] B.C.J. No. 137 (S.C.), [2005] B.C.J. No. 398 (C.A.): This case involved allegations of internet defamation arising from comments that were published on a “chat room forum” operated by our clients, and on a website referred to by our client in a newsletter. This case raised a number of novel issues involving libel and internet publication and was one of the first Canadian cases to consider the issue of limitation periods in the context of internet publication.

Insurance Issues

Our experience with insurance coverage issues in information related claims enables us to advise clients when underwriters should be involved. We also have extensive experience in reporting to and working with insurers who provide coverage in this area.