Canadian High Court Slams Door On 'Libel Tourism'

By: E&P Staff Ruling in a case involving The Washington Post's Web site, the Supreme Court of Canada served notice that the nation is not open for "libel tourism," the practice of filing a defamation suit in a country with more favorable legal standards for libel.

Without explanation, the high court on Feb. 16 refused to hear the appeal of Cheickh Bangoura, a former United Nations official. The refusal upholds a decision last September by a three-judge appellate court panel that threw out Bangoura's suit. The lawsuit was the topic of an Americas Extra column in E&P at the time.

Bangoura was working in Kenya in 1997 when the Post published two articles about his conduct while he was with the UN in the Ivory Coast. More than six years later, Bangoura, who was by then living in Canada, filed suit in Canada against the Post and three of its reporters, arguing that the articles were still available on the Post's Web site, and could be read on the Web by Canadians.

Bangoura demanded C$5 million in damages for "intentional interference with prospective economic advantage," another C$1 million for "intentional infliction of mental anguish," a further C$1 million, plus C$1 million for the Post's refusal to post retractions. On top of that, he asked for C$2 million in punitive damages.

The Post argued that the complaint should be dismissed because it had no meaningful circulation in Canada. But a Superior Court of Justice judge rejected the newspaper's motion, and allowed the case to proceed.

In a Globe and Mail article about the Supreme Court's decision, media reporter Richard Blackwell noted the lower court's decision alarmed free-press organizations who saw it as a "dangerous precedent that could damage freedom of expression." The Globe and Mail was among 50 news organizations that filed friend-of-the-court briefs when the case went to the Ontario Court of Appeal last year.

The Globe and Mail quoted Bangoura as saying he had been denied justice in the nation where he lives. "A newspaper should not be able to destroy the reputation of a person based on lies," he said.

Toronto attorney Ryder Gilliland, who represented the Post, told the Globe and Mail the decision was a victory for the news media that "cuts out libel tourism."