Enverga v. Balita Newspaper
2017 ONSC 3500
Enverga v. Balita Newspaper
2017 ONSC 3500
Ontario Superior Court of Justice — Justice F.L. Myers | June 12, 2017
Background
Senator Tobias Enverga sued Balita Newspaper and its publisher Tess Cusipag for libel after they published articles accusing him of fraud and other misconduct. During the lawsuit, Cusipag admitted under oath that her allegations were false — she knew Senator Enverga hadn't committed fraud and that her other claims were untrue. Despite this admission, Justice Lederman found the defendants liable for libel and ordered them to pay damages. He also issued an injunction prohibiting them from repeating their false statements.
But Cusipag wasn't done. In October 2016, she sent an email to contacts around the world, including a member of the Senate of Canada, asking them to "disseminate the truth" about Senator Enverga. She wrote: "I have permanent injunction. I am asking all our contacts all over the world for the truth to come out." She continued publishing the same false allegations she had admitted were lies, claiming she was on a righteous quest that she would never abandon.
Issues
- Whether Cusipag and Balita had violated the court's injunction order
- What sentence was appropriate for their contempt of court
The Contempt Finding
Justice Myers had already found Cusipag and Balita in contempt of court in a previous decision. The evidence was overwhelming — Cusipag had deliberately and publicly violated a clear court order. She knew her statements were false (she had admitted as much), she knew she was enjoined from publishing them, and she did it anyway while encouraging others to spread the same lies.
Even after being found in contempt, Cusipag posted on the internet that she had "made a vow not to give up" and continued to claim her false allegations were true. The Court of Appeal had already upheld the original libel finding, noting this was "entirely personal" conduct, not protected political speech.
The Sentencing Decision
At the sentencing hearing, Cusipag's lawyer offered an apology on her behalf, but when Justice Myers invited Cusipag to give evidence under oath about her intentions, she refused. The court found this telling — if she truly intended to comply with the court's order, why wouldn't she say so under oath?
Justice Myers explained that contempt sentences serve two purposes: compelling obedience to court orders and punishing disobedience. Since Cusipag had shown no genuine remorse and gave no indication she would stop her campaign, the primary goal of compelling compliance hadn't been achieved. Her conduct was "willful, flagrant, ongoing" and constituted a public attack on the rule of law itself.
The court sentenced Cusipag to 21 days in jail and fined the Balita entities $5,000 each. Justice Myers emphasized that this wasn't a "one-time price" to escape the original injunction — the defendants remained bound by Justice Lederman's order and would face further consequences for any future violations.
Key Takeaway
Court orders aren't suggestions — violate them at your peril, especially when you're doing it publicly and maliciously.
This case shows that courts take contempt seriously when defendants flagrantly disregard injunctions. Simply having your lawyer apologize isn't enough if you won't personally commit to following court orders. When you've been found to have published lies and ordered to stop, continuing the same conduct while claiming to be on a righteous mission will land you in jail.