Case Study: Defamation and Business Impact - Adams v. RVH

This case study examines the defamation case involving Mr. Adams and the Royal Vancouver Hospital (RVH). The analysis focuses on the legal aspects of defamation, including libel and slander, in the context of Canadian law. The case involves a news article that negatively impacted Mr. Adams's reputation and career. The study explores the legal issues, such as violation of privileges, irresponsible communication, and the application of defamation laws. It discusses the defenses available to media outlets, the potential outcomes of the case, including financial implications, and the impact on the business, particularly RVH. The document also covers reputational risks, the importance of strategic planning, and best practices for businesses dealing with defamation cases, including steps like proving the statement's defamatory nature, its relation to the plaintiff, and its publication. Furthermore, the case highlights the importance of retraction and apology and the potential for monetary costs to the defendant, while also considering the impact on Mr. Adams's reputation and career.

[DOCUMENT TITLE]
[Document subtitle]

The publication of any false statement, relating a person, or a member of his family, whether
living or dead, which has potential to cause-
(a)- injury to the reputation of person.
(b)- injury to his profession or trade.
(c)- a behaviour that leads to shun, avoidance, and despite from others.
Publication of defamatory matter can be by
(a) Vocal or audible words..
(b) written text intended to read by others.
(c) signs, signals, gestures or visible representations, and must be done to a person other than
the person defamed. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right
to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression including freedom of press and other
modes of communication. The rights conferred under “right to expression” sometimes leads
to acts that causes defamation to some other person. Defamation usually means harming or
degrading someone’s pride, reputation and goodwill by targeting the person with false
statements, either oral or written, to a third party. In case of journalists, to let the information
see the daylight, court validate “responsible communication” ,in Grant v. Torstar corp,
which is in the “larger interest of public”. The Supreme Court of Canada in Grant v. Torstar
corp. also held that any person will have right to establish claim for defamation if there are
words published and communicated to someone other that him that can lower his reputation
in the eyes of a reasonable person and referring him in fact .Provided the definition of the
reasonable person. It also distinguishes from the fact that media has right to publish
accusations within the limit of allegations keeping in mind the fact that accused is innocent
until proven guilty.T here exists various ways in which defamation can be caused. If it is in
written form then it can be referred as libel and if oral then referred as slander.
In the case mentioned prima facie , it can be held that there is a act of libel defamation in
which negative comments has been made on someone’s profession, work, trade or
business .Which causes serious loss to the reputation and career of Mr. Adams. And it leads
to the extent that he has been fired from his job. Here in this case some of the legal issue can
have potential to arise are violation of absolute privileges , unfair comments ,
irresponsible communication on the matter of public interest , innocent dissemination
and falsehood of the claims. Hereby mentioned legal issues are relevant in the case given as
Mr. Adams was well known for his integrity and his integrity and goodwill was the main
motive behind willingness of The Royal Vancouver Hospital to hire him as a givings officer
who seeks donation on behalf of hospital from private donors (BUSHMAN, SMITH &

WITTENBERG-MERMAN, 2010).The libel against him caused immediate damage to his
job and ultimate to his career. The legal issues mentioed above are important because for the
effective administration of justice, it is necessary to provide freedom of speech without fear
of consequences and absolute privilege does not protect a person who make false statement
outside court or judicial proceedings.We are all free for our fair comments about topics of
public interest and that freedom also include harsh statements also (Costandi, 2012). There is
condition that the statement must give in their opinion not as a fact which is not the case
given here. But in the case given the news article ha specifically mentioned the name of Mr.
Adams along with some other people as he is fraudulently taking advantage of Canadian tax
system .
Canada follows English laws in defamation. Libel action against the newspaper concerned
must be initiated within three months of publication. Mr Adams must notify the Chronicle,
within 6 weeks , in writings his intent to move forward with defamation claim. As per the
libel and slander act , any defamatory word in newspaper constitute libel .( R.S.O. 1990, c.l.
12, s.2.) . Section 9 of the act also authorise that the defendant (the chronicle here )can plead
in mitigation of damages. Mr Adams shall recover only actual damage if the publication has
took place by mistake or misapprehension of the facts. In reference to defendant plea to the
mitigation of damage , it can offer to publish apology article in the newspaper concerned or
the newspaper chosen by victim (Daly, 2013). After the passing of specified time limit within
which the claim must have been registered , the newspaper will have option to apply to court
against any loss of cost that the victim does not posses of property sufficient to answer the
costs of the question in case the judgement is not in favour of defendant newspaper (Daly,
2013).
In the last of case given the reporter has acknowledged her mistake with respect to Mr.
Adams and Mr. Adams despite of serious loss to his job and career , asked for retraction and
apology from the newspaper which does not come from his side even. Here there is a
potential or grey area with the applicability of legal procedure as Mr Adams from his side
proved his innocence along with evidences and the newspaper reporter has admitted her
mistake with respect to Mr. Adams, still the newspaper is not responding as per the wish of
Mr Adams . As per section 9 of the act , the newspaper while pleading for mitigation of
damages done to Mr Adams , can offer him to publish apology in any newspaper he want.
But here the newspaper has not implemented the provisions of the law.As in Kent v.
Postmedia Network inc , several weeks long trial in two defamation case, there was failure
to include retraction or apology leads to heavy cost of C$250k (Jacobsen, 2017). Also it is not

a common practice by judiciary in Canada to order retraction or apology as held in Hunger
project v. Council on Mind Abuse Inc. 1995 as there is a question regarding whether asking
to retract or apology by court in any case is in compliance with the constitutional protection
afforded to freedom of expression in Canada. So the most likely outcome as given in Kent v.
Postmedia Network Inc. is the monetary cost to the defendant (Melnitzer, 2015).
As mentioned above that the chronicle has not apologised or retracted even after requested by
Mr Adams and court does not order such practices in Canada due to protection of freedom of
expression so the court has only option to cost the Chronicle from monetary point of view. In
previous judgements the calculation of the amount to be charged upon defendant has been
made by the proportion of the reach of the news . If the reach of defamatory news is large
then amount charged will also be large. As in Kent v. Postmedia inc. case , the number of
clicks on website of the relevant media. And court focused on the traffic on the website to
calculate the amount to be charged (Minc, 2018).
Usually law of defence seemed to heavily against media but there are several defences to
media that they can use to stay out of the court, details of which can be given as-
 Truth- only if the statement is substantially true.
 Privilege and protected report- there must be clear distinction between allegation,
suspicions and proven facts.
 Honest opinion- similar to public figure defence in the U.S.A.. It requires presence
reasonable fact to believe the reality of statement, adequate measures to check the
accuracy of statement, and reasonable response from person defamed.
 Innocent dissemination- refers to unintended defamation. Ethically it must be
corrected by publisher and can be reconciled under the provisions of Uniform
Defamation Law.
 Triviality- if the media house can prove that the grounds of publishing statement
were unlikely to sustain any harm.
 Some other relevant protection of media houses are given as if defamed person
agreed to publication, matter has already judged, person has died, apologies and
resolution, obsolete statute provisions etc.
The purpose of the rule applied has been previously found to be the purpose behind the courts
verdict and court held its verdict in accordance with constitutional provisions keeping in
mind due process of law.In the case given here the fairness of the rule applied is in the
mutual interest of both the defendant and the plaintiff. As it is clear that provisions of
absolute privilege or qualified privileges cant be applicable and defendant has admitted

mistake on his side. So there doesn’t seem any affect on the outcomes of court action (Mirza,
2019).
The business involved here is the role of givings officer in Royal Vancouver Hospital. Any
defamation case involve calculable and non calculable loss. Economic loss can be
calculated in dollars. And the other damages involve pain, mental anguish, emotional distress,
loss of enjoyment of life and many other non economic loss. Here in the case given it has
quite evident Royal Vancouver Hospital may face some economic loss due to loss of
reputation of their givings officer but Mr Adams has been surely suffering from the other
type of damage which is non calculable. Loss to Hospital is not sure as Mr. Adams was
newly appointed there and donation given to the hospital is for the patients wellbeing not that
of hospital. The impact of outcome on the business can be short term and minuscule but
impact on Mr. Adams is only known to him. However being a organisation of more than 10
employees, Royal Vancouver Hospital, under Uniform Defamation Law, cannot sue
anyone. Royal Vancouver Hospital will certainly have right to sue the newspaper if they
work as a not for profit organisation.
The best course for business while dealing with such cases can be of three kind. The
businesses are very susceptible to defamation so in General while dealing with such case any
business must prove three things among which first is to ask Is the statement defamatory to
business? and it will be only defamatory if it fringes with the integrity, competence or
reputational values of the business. Second one is to ask, if the statement relate to plaintiff ?
It is not the issue here if the plaintiff is referred in the statement but the point is to find out the
view of those who read or hear the statement and if they are able to relate the statement with
business ? The third one is , if the statement published ? Publication of defamatory statement
depends upon its dissemination to people other than plaintiff . Republication of the statement
is not the liability of defendant .However , truth is compete Defence to everyone and in the
case given the reporter has admitted her mistake in case if Mr. Adams so the business
concerned can proceed in either course of action discussed above (Savidge, 2014). However
while proceeding in above mentioned steps the newspaper has been published in the Canada
and transmitted to many businesses that were client for Mr. Adams for donation for
hospital .Also the statement reffered to Mr. Adams, so it may cost monetary loss to the
Hospital which can be treated as special loss and can be claimed by plaintiff in the
defamation claim.
In context of reputational risks , it is not very easy to avoid damage to reputation while
dealing in public domain . There can be some steps to undertake while practicing your

profession which includes making these risks as part of planning and strategy,understanding
of all actions that can affect public perception, understanding stakeholders expectations,
focusing on positive image and communication, involvement of influencers can also help
enhance reputation, managing effectively your crisis communication plan, creation of
response and contingency plan etc can be some of the steps that can help you avoid any risk
of reputational damage in professional life.Also sometimes there can be malpractices from
the side of your partners so while concluding any partnership always take your time to think
before agreeing.Alwyas keep in mind your morale values, principles and goals in professional
life to avoid any kind of loss to reputation.
To avoid any such incident in future Mr Adams must respond to the present case at full of his
potential. However it has been seen that the present incident caused from the professional
point of view so Mr. Adams must take care about the points that have chance to create
reputational risk to him. Though these problem can not be prevented wholly , they can only
be minimised to the extent possible . So while dealing with professional life identification of
diversity around us, empowering people with mission, engaging them in innovations and
always ready to face difficulties can create a much needed positivity to avoid such kind of
incidents in future .Although all risks needed to be mitigated but reputational risks sometime
can be catastrophic as it is the only asset that a professional earns (Senthe & Xavier, 2013).
Understanding the environment around you and acting in accordance with the optimal benefit
of the people around you can be effective in reducing reputational risk in future.
Therefore, in the law case given , learning from the incident and acting as per the lesson
learnt is in the best of Mr . Adams. And in context of the chronicle dissemination of
information that cab cause loss to someone’s reputation must be backed with evidence.
Realising mistakes after the publication of information can attract monetary loss to the
chronicle. Also the chronicle must retract and publish apology in the best intrest of Mr.
Adams career and the hospital loss of donations.As given in the case that the chronicle has
not published even after request from Mr. Adams side to just retract and apology.As apology
from a newspaper leads to lower the accuracy and credibility of the news published. So the
chronicle possibly avoided damage to its reputation due to mistake commited by some its
reporter.
References
BUSHMAN, R., SMITH, A., & WITTENBERG-MOERMAN, R. (2010). Price Discovery
and Dissemination of Private Information by Loan Syndicate Participants. Journal Of
Accounting Research, 48(5), 921-972. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-679x.2010.00384.x

Costandi, M. (2012). Hunger Within. Scientific American Mind, 23(5), 76-76. doi:
10.1038/scientificamericanmind1112-76a
Daly, P. (2013). Prescribing Greater Protection for Rights: Administrative Law and Section 1
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:
10.2139/ssrn.2357453
Eaves, D. (2009). Supreme Court of Canada: There are no journalists, only citizens – NJN
Network. Retrieved from https://njnnetwork.com/2014/04/supreme-court-of-canada-
there-are-no-journalists-only-citizens/
Jacobsen, B. (2017). Failure to include retraction or apology in defamation settlement offer
has costs consequences | Lexology. Retrieved from
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5a347bb0-f9c8-46de-b5df-
9f7b15e2cc58
Melnitzer, J. (2015). Winners behaving badly: Recent Ontario cases show that those who win
lawsuits may not receive costs. Retrieved from https://business.financialpost.com/legal-
post/winners-behaving-badly-recent-ontario-cases-show-that-those-who-win-lawsuits-
may-not-receive-costs
Minc, A. (2018). The Minc Law Guide to California Defamation Law. Retrieved from
https://www.minclaw.com/california-defamation-law-state-guide/
Mirza, A. (2019). Grant v Torstar Corp: Responsible communication on matters of public
interest - TheCourt.ca. Retrieved from http://www.thecourt.ca/grant-v-torstar-corp-
responsible-communication-on-matters-of-public-interest/
Savidge, R. (2014). Porsild spruce in Canada – an update. The Forestry Chronicle, 90(01),
105-107. doi: 10.5558/tfc2014-016
Senthe, S., & Xavier, S. (2013). Introduction: Re-Igniting Critical Race In Canadian Legal
Spaces: Introduction To The Special Symposium Issue Of Contemporary Accounts Of
Racialization In Canada. Windsor Yearbook Of Access To Justice, 31(2), 1. doi:
10.22329/wyaj.v31i2.4407