A jilted lover has recently been ordered by the B.C. Supreme Court to pay over $238,000 in damages for her vindictive online postings. Rook v. Halcrow. She was found liable after she launched a “relentless” and “extensive” online defamation campaign against her ex-boyfriend.
The woman denied that she’d posted multiple disparaging remarks on several online platforms, but the evidence proved otherwise.
Mr. Justice Myers provided the following reasons for his Judgment:
- 41. Turning to the case at bar, Ms. Halcrow mounted a campaign against Mr. Rook that was as relentless as it was extensive. As I said, she was motivated by malice. The timing of the postings was tied to the relationship break-up, its recommencement and its second break-up.
- 42. In my view, an appropriate award of general damages is $175,000 and $25,000 aggravated damages. The plaintiff has not claimed punitive damages.
- 43. Turning to special damage, Mr. Rook engaged the services of reputation consultants to assist in having the postings removed. He spent US $29,870.00 as is entitled to recover that from Ms. Halcrow.
- 44. Mr. Rook is also entitled to his costs.
- 45. Mr. Rook is also entitled to an injunction. Ms. Halcrow, and other persons with knowledge of the order, wherever they are located in the world, are restrained from publishing any of the comments contained in the schedule attached to this judgment.
We are puzzled as to why the Plaintiff did not claim punitive damages.These are damages that are awarded to punish the Defendant.
Comments are closed