$500,000 In Damages Awarded For Comments About Yellow Ferrari's Ownership

• Published date: 17 May 2021
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Libel & Defamation
• Law Firm: Gardiner Roberts LLP
• Author: Mr Stephen Thiele

Cars are a tremendous invention. Historically, among other things, cars changed the way that people travelled and reduced significantly the travel time between destinations. Cars are certainly very popular and a luxury car parked on a city street often draws a lot of stares from passersby who dream of being able to sit behind a high-priced car's steering wheel and taking a drive. Accordingly, for someone with a potential ownership interest in a luxury car, it is easy to understand that departing with it will be difficult.

However, as demonstrated in the recent case of Groh v. Quocksister, 2021 ONSC 3226, false accusations about the ownership of a luxury car, or any piece of property, can lead to a claim for defamation and significant damages.

In this case, the plaintiff had been involved in a dispute about property that belonged to his hospitalized mother. One of the items was a 1973 yellow Dino Ferrari. While the plaintiff held a Power of Attorney for Property for his mother, she appointed new Attorneys for Property because the plaintiff provided her with no assistance. The plaintiff's mother directed her new Attorneys to wind up a motel business she had operated with her late husband and to sell the assets, including the car.

In August 2015, the Ferrari was bought by the defendants. Evidence showed that the plaintiff had actually personally signed transfer documentation. At that point, the plaintiff knew or ought to have known that the buyer was entitled to assume title had been transferred to it.

The buyer refurbished the Ferrari and sold it to G for $400,000 USD. The Ferrari was then consigned by G for auction which an auction house in California.

In January 2016, the plaintiff discovered that the Ferrari was being auctioned and took steps to prevent its sale. In an email sent to the auction house and copied to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's lawyer informed the auction house that the Ferrari had been removed from his client's possession without his consent or authorization and that the plaintiff had taken steps to have those who took the car criminally charged. A Notice of Hearing with respect to the charge was attached to the email.

The criminal Information laid by the plaintiff alleged that the yellow Ferrari was the plaintiff's property and that it was fraudulently converted by the mother's Attorneys.

The email caused a chain reaction. The auction house contacted G, who in turn contacted the defendants. G demanded a refund for having bought the car...