Law Times

Law Times • September 29, 2014 Page 11 www.lawtimesnews.com Lessons from Ford defamation case Questions raised over choice of plaintiff, defendant BY JudY van rhiJn For Law Times he mayor of Toronto has long been making news in the courts with more recent cases involving the failure of an appeal against a decision that found Rob Ford not liable for defamation. Foulidis v. Ford caught the at- tention of the public because of the personalities involved, but it's the legal community that will have to live with any long-term ef- fects of the decision and its com- panion case, Foulidis v. Baker, published on July 8. The cases arose out of com- ments made by Ford and Bruce Baker, both candidates in the 2010 municipal election, regarding un- tendered service contracts. The contract included a 20-year lease granted to the Foulidis family company, Tuggs Inc., to operate a restaurant and sell food along the beach in the city's east end. Ford and his brother Doug made com- ments in an interview published in the Toronto Sun. Baker sent a confidential letter to city council- lors referring to the article and a letter from another resident of the Beach neighbourhood that made allegations of corruption. George Foulidis, who had been respon- sible for negotiating the contracts, brought two actions for libel. What has puzzled the courts and some of those following the case is the limited num- ber of plaintiffs and defendants involved. The Court of Appeal commented: "In the end, we are left with a lone and puzzling plaintiff, George Foulidis. Where is Tuggs Inc.? We are also left with a lone and puzzling defendant, Robert Ford. Where is the Toronto Sun or even Doug Ford who said in the same interview: 'How about a 20 year untendered bid at a low- er cost and then you find out the owner's contributing to the guys who are voting for him?' Viewed in context, it cannot be said that the trial judge erred by conclud- ing that Mr. Foulidis was not the target of Mr. Ford's words." Brian Radnoff, a commercial litigator and defamation lawyer at Lerners LLP, says the decision emphasizes the importance of suing the right party. "The court is at pains to point out that it was not commenced against Doug Ford and the Toronto Sun whose comments did appear to relate to Mr. Foulidis and did appear to be defamatory. No one knows why they didn't sue them. This is a good example of needing to sue the right person and needing the right plaintiff. It might have been a better case if the parties had been different." Gil Zvulony, a defamation lawyer in Toronto, feels there was a sufficient overlap of facts between the comments of the Ford bro- thers to have allowed for multiple parties. "It would have been a na- tural choice. The Court of Appeal did mention Doug Ford, but the case was about Rob Ford attac- king George Foulidis, and the court found that he didn't." Gavin Tighe, who repre- sented Ford and Baker, made comments in his opening state- ment that it was a rare libel case where the newspaper wasn't a defendant.Radnoff notes da- mages for corporations in defa- mation are much smaller than for individuals. "Corporations don't lose sleep over their repu- tations. There's no such thing as hurt feelings." Tighe agrees. "Libel law is akin to a personal injury, where the court will assess damages at large. It's hard to decide how much pain and suffering is worth. In the case of a corpora- tion, it's dollars and cents. You must prove the actual loss." Zvulony believes not having Tuggs named as a plaintiff caused problems for Foulidis. "Foulidis had to prove that when you speak about Tuggs you speak about Foulidis, and he didn't. The evi- dence was that Rob Ford didn't know who Foulidis was. If the case was Tuggs Inc. v. Doug Ford, it may be the decision would have been different." Andrea Bolieiro, who appea- red as co-counsel with Paul Pape for Foulidis, sheds some light on the approach in the case. While she notes the decisions on how to proceed came at an early stage of the litigation, she belie- ves they ultimately were reaso- nable. "Mr. Foulidis did what most plaintiffs and trial counsel do not do. He gave great thought to how he could focus the litiga- tion to the main issue, and the main person was Rob Ford. He didn't go on the warpath and stake claims against anyone and everyone involved. I would have thought that was something that the court would want to reward, not punish. That is the main weakness in this decision." With respect to the failure to include Tuggs, Bolieiro explains that defamation is all about repu- tation. "In particular in this case, the defamatory statements were about a leasing deal and negotia- tion that were said to be corrupt. It is not Tuggs, a company, that negotiates. It's a person on behalf of Tuggs. It is not the reputation of the company that is affected. It's the reputation of the person responsible for the negotiation that's affected. The statement was going to lower the reputation of an individual. Also, when you're talking about seeking damages, it was the right decision." With respect to the Toronto Sun, Bolieiro believes the de- fence of responsible communi- cation, an issue that arose in the Baker case, would have defeated the claim. "The judge said that Baker could not rely on the responsible communication defence," says Zvulony. "Since the Supreme Court in Grant v. Torstar Corp., defendants in several cases who are not media have attempted to use it. This is the clearest deci- sion at trial level that the defence is not available if you are not a member of the media and it was confirmed on appeal. It is not a defence of general application." When it comes to the possible defendants, Bolieiro notes there was no malice in the choice. "First and foremost, the allega- tions that it was a SLAPP [stra- tegic litigation against public participation] suit against Rob Ford were completely rejected by the trial judge in the application on costs. There were reasons that parties were not added because of time limitations but there were also choices made to limit the lawsuit. We believe defamatory statements were used as a tool in Rob Ford's political campaign. Doug Ford made statements sup- porting his brother's campaign, but Rob Ford was really leading the charge." Although neither case was revolutionary in legal terms, Ti- ghe believes they have made an impact. "Both cases, because of their notoriety, have raised awa- reness and public perception of defamation and libel. It is a rare civil trial that the public follows, except on television shows." LT FOCUS Order # 804218-65203 $398 2 volume looseleaf supplemental book 3-5 supplements per year Supplements invoiced separately Anticipated upkeep cost – $291 per supplement 0-88804-218-3 Shipping and handling are extra. Prices subject to change without notice and subject to applicable taxes. CITED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Canadian emplOyment law Stacey Reginald Ball "The most comprehensive text on employment law in Canada. It is carefully constructed and accurate." Canadian Bar Review More than 6,145 cases cited canadian employment Law is a one-stop reference that provides a thorough survey of the law and analysis of developing trends, suggesting potential avenues of attack as well as identifying potential weaknesses in the law. canadian employment Law has been cited by the Supreme Court of Canada, in superior courts in every province in Canada and is used in law schools throughout Canada. With methodically organized chapters covering the complete range of employment law, canadian employment Law provides the kind of detailed examination of the facts you can count on. The subject-matter is wide-ranging and addresses issues such as: wrongful dismissal, fiduciary obligations, tort law and vicarious liability issues, remedies, constitutional issues, occupational health and safety, employment contracts, duty of good faith and fidelity and human rights. Includes a Table of Reasonable Notice — a chart, which groups together comparable types of positions so you can easily compare length of notice awards. Plus, all topics are illustrated with extensive case law and useful footnotes. availaBle RiSk-FRee FoR 30 dayS order online: www.carswell.com call toll-Free: 1-800-387-5164 in toronto: 416-609-3800 82 Scollard Street, Toronto, Canada, M5R 1G2 Excellence in Employment & Labour Law • Counsel in Leading Cases • • Author of Leading Treatise • Wrongful Dismissal Employment Law Human Rights Post Employment Competition Civil Litigation Appellate Advocacy Disability Ball Professional Corporation Referrals on behalf of employees and employers respected Contact Stacey Ball at web: www.staceyball.com (416) 921-7997 ext. 225 or srball@82scollard.com all_LT_Nov7_11.indd 1 11-11-08 11:44 AM T

• Cover