In the recent case of Dhillon v. Jaffer, 2013 BCSC
1860, the Honourable Mr. Justice Melnick had an opportunity to
review the case law on whether interest is recoverable on an award
for damages in a defamation action. Justice Melnick stated: (at:
para 27 and 28):
In defamation cases, where general damages have been awarded for
injury to reputation, the courts have ordered interest on those
general damages: e.g. Manno v. Henry, 2008 BCSC 738 (CanLII), 2008 BCSC 738;
Wilson v Switlo, 2011 BCSC 1287 (CanLII), 2011 BCSC 1287. In
Manno, Mr. Justice Grauer of this Court held at
Although these damages are
non-pecuniary in nature, their award nevertheless constitutes a
pecuniary judgment within the meaning of s. 1(1) of the Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996,
c. 79, and they do not arise from personal injury or death
within the meaning of s. 2(e) of that Act. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are
entitled to interest from the date on which their cause of action
arose to the date of this judgment.
This result would appear to me to
reflect the view of the courts that injury to reputation is not to
be equated with injury to one's person in the sense that
physical injury or emotional or mental injury are injury to
Justice Melnick's review serves as a reminder that in
British Columbia a successful plaintiff in a defamation case will
be entitled to court order interest under s. 1(1) of the Court
Order Interest Act, from "the date on which the cause of
action arose to the date of the order." As many years will
often pass between the time the defamatory comment was published to
the time judgment is rendered, the application of interest to an
award may prove quite significant.
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).