The British Columbia Court of Appeal has increased the special damages awarded to a plaintiff defamed by media publications, emphasizing significant economic loss due to damaged employment opportunities.
In Pineau v. Glacier Media Inc., the appellant, S.P., sued Glacier Media, publisher of Business in Vancouver (BIV), for defamation over an article published in 2015. The article connected S.P. to unproven allegations of financial misconduct, significantly harming his professional reputation.
Background and defamation
The case arose from two separate defamatory articles. The first, published by Glacier Media (BIV article), suggested S.P. had improperly charged over $67,000 in corporate expenses, implying financial misconduct. A second article by KMI Publishing, largely plagiarized from the BIV article, similarly damaged his reputation.
Previously, in the related KMI Publishing case, S.P. was awarded $120,000 in general damages but no special damages due to insufficient proof of specific economic loss. However, in the Glacier Media case, the court considered additional evidence proving significant economic damage, notably the loss of a lucrative employment opportunity with Blue Mountain Technologies, a company founded by S.P. and former colleague S.L.
Increased special damages
Initially, the trial court awarded S.P. $120,000 in general damages, reduced by 40% to $72,000, due to a published apology and previous compensation from the KMI case. It also awarded special damages of $180,000 for lost employment opportunities.
The Court of Appeal upheld the 40% reduction of general damages, affirming the mitigating effects of Glacier Media’s apology and previous recovery. However, it significantly increased the special damages award from $180,000 to $360,000, ultimately reduced to $330,000 to account for prior compensation received.
Employment opportunity lost
Crucially, the Court accepted evidence from S.L., who testified he had planned to offer S.P. a partnership position paying over $150,000 annually. This offer was withdrawn upon discovering the defamatory article, fearing reputational risks to the company. The Court ruled that the earlier assessment of special damages was “inordinately low,” adjusting the amount to better reflect the significant economic harm caused by the defamation.
Legal arguments and cross-appeals
Glacier Media argued against awarding special damages, suggesting S.P.’s claims were inadequately pleaded. However, the Court of Appeal found the pleadings sufficient, emphasizing that the claims clearly articulated the impairment of S.P.’s employment prospects.
Additionally, the appellant argued the initial trial court erred by applying mitigation factors incorrectly to general damages. The Court rejected these arguments, stating the trial judge properly considered the mitigating effects of the apology and previous damages recovered.
Apologies and mitigation
Glacier Media’s apologies, published seven years post-defamation, were considered mitigating but had minimal impact due to their lateness. The Court highlighted that timely apologies significantly influence damage mitigation in defamation cases.
For more information, see Pineau v. Glacier Media Inc., 2025 BCCA 101 (CanLII).
