2018 July 5

Roy v. Ottawa Capital Area Crime Stoppers, 2018 ONSC 4207

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice summarily dismissed a claim for libel against Crime Stoppers but permitted a claim against the Ottawa Police to proceed to trial.  The claims concerned a still image captured by police from a shopping mall  surveillance video which depicted the plaintiff taking an unattended purse and heading for a mall exit.  The caption posted with that image on the Crime Stoppers website read:  “Ottawa: Purse Snatching in Downtown Mall.”  Accompanying text read in part “a female suspect stole a purse while walking” through the mall.  In fact, the plaintiff was entirely innocent:  she was acting as a “good Samaritan” and had taken the purse to the Ottawa Transit Authority lost and found.  The plaintiff’s lawyer sent a registered and fax letter to Crime Stoppers informing them the purse was in the lost and found and demanding the removal of the misleading website post.  There was a delay by either Crime Stoppers or the police in removing the misleading post.  Nevertheless, the Court held that Crime Stoppers was entitled to the statutory immunity provided by section 3(3) of the Ontario Libel and Slander Act because it had merely published a “fair and accurate synopsis in a broadcast of a notice issued for the information of the public by a public authority”.  The Court noted that the plaintiff did not allege or submit evidence of malice by Crime Stoppers. However, although the libel claim was barred, the Court permitted the plaintiff to pursue a possible negligence claim at trial against Crime Stoppers.