Enverga v. Balita Newspaper
The motion judge’s assessment of compensatory and punitive damages was within the permissible range and not tainted by palpable and overriding error; appellate court will not interfere where the judge properly applied legal principles, reasonably considered relevant precedent (Botiuk), and where the defendant’s...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2017 ONCA 302
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Senator Tobias Enverga Jr.; Defendant: Balita Newspaper; Defendant: Balita Media Inc.; Defendant: Tess Cusipag; Defendant: Romeo P. Marquez (a.k.a. Romy Marquez); Defendant: Carlos Padilla
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 12 April 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Defamation Appeal / Appeal From Damages (damages Only)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Libel, Compensatory Damages, Punitive Damages, Appeal Standard of Review, Precedent (botiuk), Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Senator Tobias Enverga Jr.
Plaintiff
Balita Newspaper
Defendant
Balita Media Inc.
Defendant
Tess Cusipag
Defendant
Romeo P. Marquez (a.k.a. Romy Marquez)
Defendant
Carlos Padilla
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Defamation Appeal / Appeal From Damages (damages Only)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the assessment of compensatory damages was excessive or outside the range of reasonable awards
- 2 Whether the award of punitive damages was excessive and required interference on appeal
- 3 Whether the motion judge erred in relying on and distinguishing precedent (Botiuk)
Ratio Decidendi
The motion judge’s assessment of compensatory and punitive damages was within the permissible range and not tainted by palpable and overriding error; appellate court will not interfere where the judge properly applied legal principles, reasonably considered relevant precedent (Botiuk), and where the defendant’s repeated, knowing defamation warranted significant punitive damages.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs to the respondent in the amount of $16,000, all in
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Enverga v. Balita Newspaper Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2017-04-12 Neutral citation 2017 ONCA 302 Docket numbers C62541 Judges Doherty, David H.; MacFarland, Jean Louise; Rouleau, Paul S. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Enverga v. Balita Newspaper, 2017 ONCA 302 DATE: 20170412 DOCKET: C62541 Doherty, MacFarland and Rouleau JJ.A. BETWEEN Senator Tobias Enverga Jr. Plaintiff (Respondent) and Balita Newspaper, Balita Media Inc., Tess Cusipag, Romeo P. Marquez (a.k.a. Romy Marquez) and Carlos Padilla Defendants (Appellants) James H. Chow, for the appellants Howard W. Winkler and Eryn Pond, for the respondent Heard: April 6, 2017 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Sidney N. Lederman of the Superior Court of Justice, dated July 13, 2016. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] This is an appeal from damages only. [2] We appreciate the standard of review applicable to an appeal from a damage award in a defamation action. The motion judge’s reasons are found at [2016] ONSC 4512. They demonstrate a full and accurate appreciation of the legal principles as they apply to the quantification of compensatory and punitive judgments. [3] The motion judge referred to Botiuk as a similar case insofar as the assessment of compensatory damages is concerned. We agree with the appellant that there were differences between the two cases. However, there were also significant similarities. The trial judge did not err in considering Botiuk and giving some weight to the award approved in that case in making his assessment of compensatory damages. [4] The appellant suggest that the award is out of line with other awards in cases involving the defamation of political figures. Those cases were not put before the motion judge. In any event, this was not a “political” case on the findings of the motion judge. On those findings, the appellant created a controversy so that she could defame the respondent. This was entirely personal. [5] The conduct of the appellant as described by the motion judge demanded a substantial award of punitive damages. On his findings, the appellant had repeated the defamation, knowing full well that it was false and intended to continue to repeat the defamation in the future. On the facts as found by the motion judge, deterrence could only be adequately served by a significant award of punitive damages. We cannot say that the amount awarded is outside of the range required to serve as an adequate deterrent in the circumstances of this case. We cannot interfere with the award. [6] The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent in the amount of $16,000, “all in”.