The recent ruling in Pineau v. KMI Publishing and Events Ltd. by the B.C. Court of Appeal has clarified an important distinction in internet defamation cases. While sharing a hyperlink to a defamatory article created by a third party does not establish liability, sharing a hyperlink to one’s own defamatory article can impact damage assessment. This ruling is particularly relevant in the context of social media platforms.
In the case, the plaintiff, a former CEO, was sued by his former company. Subsequently, the defendants published their own article based on a previous article, highlighting issues related to corporate whistleblowers. They shared a hyperlink to their article through various channels, including email and social media. The B.C. Supreme Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, finding the defendants liable for defamation but concluded that sharing hyperlinks did not constitute publication.
However, the B.C. Court of Appeal overturned the decision, emphasizing that the trial judge erred by not considering the defendants’ conduct in sharing the hyperlink when assessing damages. The Court of Appeal distinguished the case from Crookes v. Newton, highlighting that sharing a hyperlink to one’s own defamatory material is relevant to damages assessment when liability has been established. The Court set aside the initial damages award and substituted it with a higher amount.
This ruling does not alter the existing law established in Crookes but underlines the difference between sharing someone else’s defamatory material and sharing one’s own. Sharing someone else’s defamatory material via hyperlink does not establish liability, whereas sharing one’s own can impact damages assessment when liability has been established. This distinction is particularly significant in the realm of Internet defamation cases due to the widespread use of social media platforms by both individuals and businesses.