Refund and Reparation - Legal: Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto

Source: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1995/1995rcs2-1130/1995rcs2-1130.html

Morris Manning and
the Church of Scientology of Toronto Appellants

v.

S. Casey Hill Respondent

and

The Attorney General for Ontario, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Writers' Union of Canada, PEN Canada, the Canadian Association of Journalists, the Periodical Writers Association of Canada, the Book and Periodical Council, the Canadian Daily Newspaper Association, the Canadian Community Newspapers Association, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the Radio-Television News Directors Association of Canada, the Canadian Book Publishers' Council and the Canadian Magazine Publishers' Association Interveners

There seems to have been a continuing conscious effort on Scientology's part to intensify and perpetuate its attack on Casey Hill without any regard for the truth of its allegations.

In summary, every aspect of this case demonstrates the very real and persistent malice of Scientology. Their actions preceding the publication of the libel, the circumstances of its publication and their subsequent actions in relation to both the search warrant proceedings and this action amply confirm and emphasize the insidious malice of Scientology.

Scientology's behaviour throughout can only be characterized as recklessly high-handed, supremely arrogant and contumacious. There seems to have been a continuing conscious effort on Scientology's part to intensify and perpetuate its attack on Casey Hill without any regard for the truth of its allegations.

Punitive damages may be awarded in situations where the defendant's misconduct is so malicious, oppressive and high-handed that it offends the court's sense of decency. Punitive damages bear no relation to what the plaintiff should receive by way of compensation. Their aim is not to compensate the plaintiff, but rather to punish the defendant. It is the means by which the jury or judge expresses its outrage at the egregious conduct of the defendant.

There can be no doubt that the conduct of Scientology in the publication of the injurious false statement pertaining to its "enemy" was malicious. Its publication was carefully planned and carried out in a manner which ensured its widest possible dissemination in the most damaging manner imaginable.

Scientology's actions from the time of publication, throughout the trial, and after the trial decision was rendered constituted a continuing attempt at character assassination by means of a statement which it knew to be false. It was such outrageous conduct that it cried out for the imposition of punitive damages.

In his reasons for granting the injunction, Carruthers J. stated that he was forced to take that action because "no amount awarded on account of punitive damages would have prevented or will prevent the Church of Scientology from publishing defamatory statements about the plaintiff". Even the injunction did not deter Scientology which moved to set it aside.

Further, the circumstances presented in this exceptional case demonstrate that there was such insidious, pernicious and persistent malice that the award for punitive damages cannot be said to be excessive."