New Harassment Tort Recognized by Ontario Court After “Exceptional Malicious Harassment Campaign”
February 08, 2021
Bereskin & Parr LLP
To print this article, all you need to do is be registered or log in to Mondaq.com.
A new civil harassment in Internet communications in Ontario was recognized in a decision by the Ontario Supreme Court on January 28, 2021.
The decision in the Caplan v. Atas case (2021 ONSC 670) concerns four lawsuits against the defendant for defamation, harassment and related claims. From the start of the decision, it was clear that each lawsuit was based on a number of extreme facts. The first few paragraphs described how the defendant carried out “extraordinary campaigns of malicious harassment and defamation” and how she was able, over the Internet, to “spread horrific messages across the world through multiple non-police platforms, forcing victims to litigate in multiple jurisdictions to gather evidence, to entangle them, to add to their costs and to delay the judicial process “. There have been up to 150 victims of the defendant’s online harassment, which included posting defamatory content such as: For example, claiming that plaintiffs are dishonest, fraudulent, or sexual predators or pedophiles, and posting generally abusive content such as calling plaintiffs. “Twits” or “Stupid”. The defendants’ harassment extended to the children, family members and friends of their targeted campaigns.
The decision describes the defendant’s long history of not being cooperative and difficult in multiple legal proceedings. The defendant spent 74 days in jail for despising the court and was classified as a vexatious litigator. She is also an unsolved bankruptcy administrator who is essentially making her “judgment” and not providing the remedy for compensation in these lawsuits. Against this background, the Court had two closely related objectives: a specific deterrent; and second, to prevent the accused from continuing or repeating this behavior.
The Court examined the existing custom disputes and concluded that they were insufficient to cover all aspects of the defendant’s conduct and that no remedies were available. The court found that the defendants’ conduct went beyond defamation as it was intended to harass their victims and their loved ones. With regard to the illicit act of intentionally causing mental suffering, the Court concluded that it was insufficient in these circumstances, since one element of the cause of the action is conduct which “leads to a visible and demonstrable disease” and the Court does not One such illness states, “One would hope that molesting a defendant could be stopped before it had such consequences.” and detectable disease. “Ultimately, the court concluded that the facts did not exactly fit into the tort of invasion of privacy and” seclusion “since the accused did not intrude into the plaintiff’s private affairs. She had posted on the Internet Photographs used It was the repeated use of these photographs in combination with false statements about the individuals who constituted the “essence of their wrongdoing”.
Following American case law, the plaintiffs had proposed a tortious act of harassment of Internet communications, which the Ontario court believed should be recognized as “harassment,” which most aptly described what the defendant had done to the plaintiffs. In addition, the ability to order the defendant to cease harassing the plaintiffs provided “a remedial measure not available under the Libel Act”. According to the court, the test for the illicit act of harassment in internet communications is as follows:
- When the accused engages in malicious or reckless communication behavior that is so outrageous in character, duration and extreme extent that it goes beyond all possible limits of propriety and tolerance;
- Intended to cause fear, anxiety, emotional upset or to question the claimant’s dignity; and
- The plaintiff suffers such damage.
With the exception of the United States, no other common law court has recognized the common law offense of harassment. In its decision, the Court refers to an earlier decision by the Ontario Supreme Court, Merrifield v. Canada (Attorney General) (2017 ONSC 1333), which appears to have recognized a common law unlawful act of harassment in a labor law context. However, this was overturned on appeal because the Court of Appeal (i) concluded that the tort of willful causing mental suffering was a sufficient remedy in the circumstances and (ii) there was no foreign judicial or academic authority to recognize them A new tort was made available.
Although the accused himself was represented at the trial, the decision could possibly be appealed. Currently, however, the ruling is a law, however, it sets a high bar for future plaintiffs to detect this tort. The tort in this case was found due to its particularly egregious facts and the inadequacy of existing acts to address the conduct of the accused. Future decisions must evaluate the behavior of the parties to determine what circumstances and facts enable that tort to be used if it stands up to appeal.
The content of this article is intended to provide general guidance on the subject. A professional should be obtained about your particular circumstances.
POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Employment and Workers from Canada
“I give up!” – When is an oral withdrawal valid?
In Conway v Griff Building Supplies Ltd., 2020 CarswellBC 3112, it was found that an employee resigned orally during a meeting despite not having submitted a formal letter of resignation.
Ontario is getting a new ordeal for now
Strigberger Brown Armstrong LLP
In a ruling dated January 28, 2021, an Ontario Supreme Court judge recognized a new tort as the only way to redeem victims of a multi-year campaign of contemptuous behavior “unconditionally by basic decency”.
Discipline employees for off duty behavior
Miller Thomson LLP
In the past few days, there has been significant public talks in the United States, Canada, and beyond about the insurgent uprising that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.