Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 01 MARCH 2016

$30,000 Awarded For Defamatory Statements Made On Facebook

In April 2014, the Defendant sent two private messages to the Plaintiff's daughter where he expanded on the claims he made in September 2013.

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

As I stated in a previous post Jane Doe 464533 v. X, courts must always adapt the common law to meet the needs of the digital age. Justice Faieta's decision in Hardev Kumar v. Vinod Khurana, 2015 ONSC 7858 is an example of this trend. Unlike the case that I profiled previously, where the court recognized a new tort to compensate the victim of so-called “revenge porn”, the court in Kumar v. Khurana simply applied an age-old tort, defamation, with special sensitivity to the realities of internet communication.

In September 2013, the Defendant, Mr. Khurana, posted statements on the Plaintiff's Facebook page that suggested that the Plaintiff was an impecunious extortionist who needed to get money from his late father's estate. In April 2014, the Defendant sent two private messages to the Plaintiff's daughter where he expanded on the claims he made in September 2013.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from