“A plaintiff in a defamation case does not need to prove that they suffered a financial loss in order to be awarded damages: Mudford v. Smith, 2009 CanLII 55718 (ON SC), [2009] O.J. No. 4317 (S.C.J.), aff’d 2010 ONCA 395. As Justice Perell observed in Mina Mar Group v. Divine, 2011 ONSC 1172, at para. 13, general damages in defamation cases serve three purposes: (1) to compensate the plaintiff for the distress suffered from the defamation (2) to repair the harm done to their personal and professional reputation; and (3) as a “vindication of reputation”. This third objective, which may perhaps be more easily understood as “restoration of reputation”, shows that general damages for defamation, unlike damages for other wrongs, may have a purely symbolic function.
Damages for defamation vary significantly. Ms. Post directed me to four cases — Emeny v. Tomasewski, 2019 ONSC 3298; Rodrigues v Rodrigues, 2013 QBQB 718; Warman v. Grosvenor (2008), 2008 CanLII 57728 (ON SC), 92 OR (3d) 663; and Bains v. 1420546 Ontario Inc., 2011 ONSC 3686 —where courts have awarded general damages from $50,000 to $250,000. This range underscores how general damages awards depends on the facts of each case.
In Hill v. Church of Scientology, 1995 CanLII 59 (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 1130, at p. 1203, the Supreme Court of Canada set out factors to consider in assessing damages for defamation. These factors, and the evidence of Ms. Hillier’s actual malice, support a significant damages award in this case.”