Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Civil liability - Libel and slander - Injury - Evidence - Group defamation - “Ordinary citizen” standard - Racist comments - Tests for determining whether action in damages based on defamation of unidentified persons lies - Whether all drivers had to testify at trial to establish their damages - Whether claim for punitive damages well-founded - Whether fee agreement should have been homologated by trial judge.

On November 17, 1998, during a radio program broadcast on a station operated by the Respondent Diffusion Métromédia CMR Inc., André Arthur made offensive comments about Montreal’s “Arab and Haitian” taxi drivers. He denounced their incompetence, claimed that their vehicles were dirty and suggested that they had obtained their licences by corrupt means and that they were responsible for the deplorable state of this mode of transportation in Montreal. Mr. Arthur also tolerated and encouraged offensive remarks made by a listener who took part in the program. The Appellant, a taxi driver, heard the program and subsequently obtained authorization to institute a class action on behalf of every person who had a taxi licence in Montreal on November 17, 1998, and whose mother tongue was Arabic or Creole. Alleging that the comments were defamatory and discriminatory, he sought moral and punitive damages for each group member in the amounts of $750 and $200, respectively.

The Superior Court allowed the class action. The trial judge found that the comments were wrongful and that they were defamatory and discriminatory. However, he held that evidence of a causal connection was not complete in that only 11 of the 1,100 taxi drivers concerned had testified before him. In the circumstances, he awarded a collective remedy and ordered the Respondents to pay a non-profit organization $220,000 as compensation for moral injury. He dismissed the claim for punitive damages and refused to confirm a fee agreement. The majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the Respondents’ appeal on the issue of whether injury had been sustained and dismissed the Applicant’s incidental appeal on the issues of punitive damages and the fee agreement. The majority found that an ordinary citizen who had heard the comments in issue would have concluded that they were not defamatory. The dissenting judge found that they were defamatory, were directed against Arabic-speaking and Haitian drivers, and had caused individual injury to each driver in the circumstances.