No, not the Mann vs. Steyn case. That comes later. This is the case of Dr. Andrew Weaver being libeled by deniers.
2015 BCSC 165 Weaver v. Corcoran
---
[289] As in Leenen, the defamation in this case was serious. It offended Dr. Weaver’s character and the defendants refused to publish a retraction. The libel was widely published by at least one high profile journalist and two others. In addition, the libel effectively ran through a serious of articles in a national newspaper published over a short and continuous time period. Re-publication of the libel occurred as established by the plaintiff.
[290] I am of the view a significant award is appropriate. The inferential meaning of the words implies a serious defect in character that impacts Dr. Weaver’s academic and professional world. The evidence establishes Dr. Weaver was deeply affected by what he perceived as a barrage of articles impugning his integrity and academic reputation. These gave rise to the “Wall of Hate” that he maintained outside his office; comments, he noted, which arose after the publication of those articles.
[291] I consider an award of $50,000 in general damages against all defendants jointly and severally to be appropriate in this case. I decline to award aggravated or punitive damages. I have not found malice to be present in this case.
---
It's Canada, of course, and it's highly unlikely a suit like that could win in the USA. And it's not a huge award. However, it's a welcome precedent.
Deniers, you can take heart that the "We weren't deliberately malicious, we were just stupid!" defense was taken into account as a mitigating factor for assigning damages. And always remember, if you don't want to get sued, don't make stuff up.
2015 BCSC 165 Weaver v. Corcoran
---
[289] As in Leenen, the defamation in this case was serious. It offended Dr. Weaver’s character and the defendants refused to publish a retraction. The libel was widely published by at least one high profile journalist and two others. In addition, the libel effectively ran through a serious of articles in a national newspaper published over a short and continuous time period. Re-publication of the libel occurred as established by the plaintiff.
[290] I am of the view a significant award is appropriate. The inferential meaning of the words implies a serious defect in character that impacts Dr. Weaver’s academic and professional world. The evidence establishes Dr. Weaver was deeply affected by what he perceived as a barrage of articles impugning his integrity and academic reputation. These gave rise to the “Wall of Hate” that he maintained outside his office; comments, he noted, which arose after the publication of those articles.
[291] I consider an award of $50,000 in general damages against all defendants jointly and severally to be appropriate in this case. I decline to award aggravated or punitive damages. I have not found malice to be present in this case.
---
It's Canada, of course, and it's highly unlikely a suit like that could win in the USA. And it's not a huge award. However, it's a welcome precedent.
Deniers, you can take heart that the "We weren't deliberately malicious, we were just stupid!" defense was taken into account as a mitigating factor for assigning damages. And always remember, if you don't want to get sued, don't make stuff up.
