Part 53 published on 01/02/16
Defamation claim against condominium director dismissed
A condominium director sent a defamatory email about the actions of the plaintiff in relation to the collection of proxies for a meeting of owners. In particular, the email (sent to 14 people) said that a proxy, obtained by the plaintiff, was a forgery. The director sent a further apologetic email after he learned that the proxy in question was in fact not a forgery.
The Court said that despite the defamation, the director was protected by the defence of “qualified privilege”.
The Court said that the director in question had a legitimate mandate to report the circumstance to the condominium corporation; and it was proper to do so, because (when he sent the initial email) the director had an honest belief, without malice, that the proxy was in fact a forgery. This was also a matter of legitimate concern to the condominium corporation. The Court said:
I have found that Mr. Lau honestly believed the impugned publication. And thus to establish malice to defeat qualified privilege, Mr. Wan would have to establish that Mr. Lau’s dominant purpose in publishing the impugned words was some improper purpose. There is simply no evidence of that in this case.
The Court also said that the retraction or apology email was imperfect, because it failed to specifically name the plaintiff. The Court said:
I find that the Retraction is effective, but not 100% effective, in eliminating the damage caused by the impugned words. Thus, had I found Mr. Lau liable, I would have discounted the damages arising from the defamatory publication by 80% because of the swift publication of the Retraction.