Gold Firm Libelled on Web Sites, Court RulesGold Firm Libelled on Web Sites, Court Rules
By Tracey Tyler
Toronto Star
Saturday, June 5, 2004
In a decision legal experts say will "scare the hell"
out of Internet users and set back free speech, the
Ontario Court of Appeal has ordered a homeless
Vancouver man to pay $125,000 in damages for
libelling a gold mining corporation on several Web
sites. The court also issued a permanent injunction
to stop Jorge Lopehandia from defaming the
company in cyberspace.
When Barrick Gold Corp. sued Lopehandia for libel
last year, the trial judge, Madam Justice Katherine
Swinton, concluded his Internet postings amounted
to an "emotional, often incoherent" diatribe that
no reasonable person would take seriously. She
awarded the company a nominal $15,000 for injury
to its reputation.
But the appeal court set aside her decision yesterday.
In a 2-1 ruling, the court called Lopehandia's campaign
of "cyber libel" malicious, high-handed, unremitting,
tenacious, vicious, spiteful, "wide ranging in
substance, and worldwide in scope."
Lopehandia claims that he and three others nominally
owned a Chilean mine site acquired by Barrick. In
messages posted on various cyber bulletin boards, he
accuses the company of, among other things, fraud,
money laundering, and pursuing organized crimes
against humanity. "Barrick is DEVIL killer," one line
said.
Libelling someone on the Internet is different than
defaming him in other media, such as newspapers,
the court said yesterday. Lopehandia's use of the
Internet made his "blizzard" of messages potentially
more damaging -- and more believable -- because of
the speed, scope, and blunt anonymous nature of
statements on the World Wide Web, the court said.
Lopehandia did not have a lawyer representing him
at the trial or when the case came before the Court
of Appeal.
Mr. Justice Robert Blair, who wrote yesterday's
decision, said Lopehandia's writing style might not
be taken seriously in more traditional media, such as
newspapers, but there's nothing to suggest it would
be laughed off on the Internet, where, as one expert
put it "anything goes."
The majority increased general damages to $75,000
and ordered Lopehandia to pay $50,000 in punitive
damages as punishment for conduct Blair described
as falling into the special category of being so
outrageous that it offends the court's sense of
decency. The use of the Internet helped to push it
into that league, he said.
Reached yesterday in North Vancouver, Lopehandia's
son, Jordan, 23, said his father is living in a
downtown hostel and has no access to a phone. He
believes that people are out to get him, his son
said.
Libel law experts found yesterday's ruling deeply
troubling.
"This is a decision which will send a chill to
users of the Internet," said Toronto lawyer and
libel law expert Bert Bruser, who represents the
Star. "The Court of Appeal has determined that
somehow or other, chatter on the Internet is
more deadly than other forms of libel and they
did this, it seems to me, without any evidence."
Libel law expert Brian Rogers agreed.
Rogers said he too found it disturbing that "some
very strong and pervasive" findings were made about
the Internet without hearing from those who might
defend how it was used in this case.