I think I have managed to put most of the bashers on ignore now so I’m not seeing who is still here, but I can tell from other people’s posts that they still are.

There is an Ontario Court of Appeal case called: Barrick Gold Corp. v. Lopehandia, 2004 CanLII 12938 (ON C.A.). Here is the summary, but if you would like to check out the case yourself, here is a link to the case:

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2004/2004canlii12938/2004canlii12938.html

And another to a CLE Analysis by Bradley J. Freedman - Borden Ladner Gervais LLP - http://www.cle.bc.ca/CLE/Analysis/Collection/04-12345-barrick

A. The facts (from the CLE Analysis)

As a result of a grievance against Barrick regarding a mining property in Chile, Lopehandia, a British Columbia businessman, engaged in a prolonged, extensive, and vicious campaign of Internet libel, posting hundreds of false and defamatory statements concerning Barrick on message boards of various well-known Internet sites, including Lycos, Yahoo, and Silicon Investor. The postings were read by Internet users, including Ontario residents; prompted inquiries from Barrick shareholders, financial analysts, and regulatory agencies; and elicited support and encouragement from other persons, thereby amplifying the spread of the defamation throughout the Internet. Barrick sued Lopehandia in Ontario.

(from the Court of Appeal Reasons for Judgment)

The Court of Appeal decided as follows:

DISPOSITION
[82] I would accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the motions judge and in its place order:
(a) that the defendants pay to the plaintiff general damages in the amount of $75,000.00;
(b) that the defendants pay to the plaintiff punitive damages in the amount of $50,000;
(c) that the defendants are permanently restrained from disseminating, posting on the Internet or publishing in any manner whatsoever, either directly or indirectly any defamatory statements concerning Barrick or its officers, directors or employees, all as claimed in paragraph 2 of the notice of motion for judgment before the motions judge.
[83] Barrick is entitled to its costs of the appeal on a partial indemnity basis. Brief written submissions may be made in that regard within thirty days of the release of this decision.
“R.A. Blair J.A.”
“I agree J.I. Laskin J.A.”
----------------

From the looks of it you bashers could be $125,000 poorer if you keep it up. I haven’t even checked to see if there are more recent cases which would make the stakes higher but with inflation it surely would be.