2020 January 13

Theralase Technologies Inc. v. Lanter, 2020 ONSC 205

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the three plaintiffs damages aggregating $450,000 against one named and 10 unidentified defendants (John Does 1 to 10) over defamatory statements published on the “Stockhouse.com” website (not named as a defendant).  The Court described the website as “aimed at investors in Canada and the US” and having “separate pages relating to each company whose shares trade on public markets in North America.”  “The Stockhouse.com webpage for each listed company includes a function called the ‘Bullboard’ which provides an internet chat forum on which users are able to publish self-generated content about the company” and “can do so using pseudonyms to avoid disclosing their true identities.”  The Court noted that in this case, each of the defaulting defendants was served at an email address provided to Stockhouse.com or through their private messaging accounts on the Stockhouse.com website.   The damage awards were as follows:  (a) against the defendant Borovec for four posts; $15,000 general damages to the corporate plaintiff;  $25,000 general damages and $15,000 aggravated damages to the plaintiff Dumoulin-White; general damages of $25,000 and $15,000 aggravated damages to the plaintiff Hachev; (b) against John Doe No. 1 for two comments read 61 and 154 times respectively: $10,000 general damages to plaintiff Dumoulin-White; (c) against John Doe No. 2 for 6 comments, one read 185 times, others between 30 and 90 times: $35,000 general damages and $15,000 aggravated damages to Dumoulin-White; $15,000 general damages to the corporate plaintiff; (d) against John Doe No. 3 for two posts read 59 and 123 times: $10,000 to Dumoulin-White and $10,000 to the corporate plaintiff; (e) against John Doe No. 4: one publication read 133 times: $10,000  general damages to Dumoulin-White and $10,000 general damages to the corporate plaintiff; (f) against John Doe No. 5 for four posts read between 73 and 140 times: $25,000 general damages and $15,000 aggravated damages for Dumoulin-White and $15,000 general damages for the corporate plaintiff; (g) against John Doe No. 6: $7,500 general damages, $10,000 aggravated damages and $17,500 punitive damages for the plaintiff Hachev; (h) against John Doe. No. 7, for two posts read 242 times and 156 times respectively: $15,000 general damages for Dumoulin-White; (i) against John Doe No. 8 for five posts read between 59 and 238 times: $35,000 general damages to the corporate plaintiff; (j) against John Doe No. 9 for four posts, read between 150 and 171 times:  $25,000 general damages for Dumoulin-White; and (k) against John Doe No. 10 for four posts read between 117 and 118 times: $35,000 general damages for the corporate plaintiff; and $25,000 general damages and $15,000 aggravated damages for the Dumoulin-White.  With respect to costs, the Court stated that “the defaulting defendants’ failure to participate in this action makes their conduct all the more abusive.  They have caused the plaintiffs to incur substantial sums to ferret out their identities such as they have done and to prove their cases … their cowardice is reprehensible … and they should bear costs on a substantial indemnity basis.”