Justice Kristjanson of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has applied the tort of publicly placing a person in a false light in ordering an abusive husband to pay $300,000 in damages to his estranged spouse.
The defendant waged a campaign against the plaintiff in which, contrary to court orders, he published photos and videos of the couple’s two children to allege the plaintiff was a child abuser and criminal. He also targeted the plaintiff by e-mailing community members links to his content and directing various real-world publications via pamphleting and postering in the UK, where the plaintiff had sought shelter. The campaign was extreme, causing the plaintiff to become ill and fear for her safety.
Justice Kristjanson awarded $150,000 in punitive damages, $50,000 for intentional infliction of mental suffering and $100,000 for breach of privacy. The breach of privacy damages were based jointly on the public disclosure of embarrassing private facts tort and the tort that applies to publicity that places one in a false light. On the false light tort, Justice Kristjanson explained:
170 With these three torts all recognized in Ontario law, the remaining item in the “four-tort catalogue” of causes of action for invasion of privacy is the third, that is, publicity placing the plaintiff in a false light. I hold that this is the case in which this cause of action should be recognized. It is described in § 652E of the Restatement as follows:Publicity Placing Person in False LightOne who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if(a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and(b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.171 I adopt this statement of the elements of the tort. I also note the clarification in the Restatement‘s commentary on this passage to the effect that, while the publicity giving rise to this cause of action will often be defamatory, defamation is not required. It is enough for the plaintiff to show that a reasonable person would find it highly offensive to be publicly misrepresented as they have been. The wrong is in publicly representing someone, not as worse than they are, but as other than they are. The value at stake is respect for a person’s privacy right to control the way they present themselves to the world.172 It also bears noting this cause of action has much in common with the tort of public disclosure of private facts. They share the common elements of 1) publicity, which is 2) highly offensive to a reasonable person. The principal difference between the two is that public disclosure of private facts involves true statements, while “false light” publicity involves false or misleading claims. (Two further elements also distinguish the two causes of action: “false light” invasion of privacy requires that the defendant know or be reckless to the falsity of the information, while public disclosure of private facts involves a requirement that there be no legitimate public concern justifying the disclosure.)173 It follows that one who subjects another to highly offensive publicity can be held responsible whether the publicity is true or false. This indeed, is precisely why the tort of publicity placing a person a false light should be recognized. It would be absurd if a defendant could escape liability for invasion of privacy simply because the statements they have made about another person are false.174 Moreover, it is likely that in the course of creating publicity placing a person in a false light, the wrongdoer will happen to include true, but private, facts about the person whose privacy is invaded. In this case, for instance, the defendant has publicized falsehoods about the plaintiff, but he has also publicly aired private facts about her present living situation with the children and her parents (including videos of their home) and details of access visits which is a true, but private matter.
This is the first time the false light tort has been recognized in Canada. Justice Kristjanson said the $20,000 cap on damages recognized in Jones v Tsige “may not apply” to it, though also suggested a larger award was warranted on the facts.
Justice Kristjanson also issued a 33 paragraph order that provided for broad-ranging permanent injunctive relief and made the defendant’s right of access to his children dependent on compliance. (The trial of the plaintiff’s action proceeded together with a family law trial.)