# Canadian libel law



## kaegunim (Jan 15, 2010)

I am wondering (after following a piece of recent news that shall remain nameless) how Canadian libel and slander law shapes up. Any expert (or at least well informed) advice would be appreciated.

I am going to use an example - I am not sure if it is the very best possible example, but bear with it...
_
Assume you see a news report about a van (say a Company X delivery van, to make this a case with incresed likelyhood of legal action) that jumped a curb and crashed through the front lobby of city hall. No other details available yet._

To my knowledge there is nothing defamatory in conjecture, presuming that the author does not state it to be fact.

For instance if I were to say, or write "I wonder if the driver was drunk?", I would be fine, as would asking "Might he have been drinking before the accident?", but stating definitely that "He was drunk on the job" would be defamation unless I knew this for a fact. Am I right so far?

Now for first hand information: say I had seen the driver getting into the car looking unsteady. I could say "He looked drunk when he got behind the wheel" without problem, yes? But not having a handy breathalyzer I could not say that "He was drunk when he got into the van"... even though this may very well have been the case.

I would just like to know what I can safely express. We are supposed to have freedom of speech, but when freedom of expression is measured agains someone with the money to press a law suit, where do we stand?


----------



## AquariAM (Jan 28, 2010)

I'm pretty sure you're on the right track.
One way to easily cover yourself is to tell a story with no basis in reality where a truck that hit schitey haulle in Two Ron Tow was driven by a drunk. 

That's 100% safe.

Another way would be to simply word your opinion in a way that doesn't sound like an opinion.

"I know the only time I can see MY self driving that badly would be if I were drunk"


----------



## Ciddian (Mar 15, 2006)

> I would just like to know what I can safely express. We are supposed to have freedom of speech, but when freedom of expression is measured agains someone with the money to press a law suit, where do we stand?


Agree.... +1


----------



## Violie (Feb 27, 2010)

I kind of feel offended and then again a little confused about how I feel. This is basically and anti-gossip law. I can understand a law like this in a legal setting where what someone says can ahve a huge impact, but just chatting and speculating? It seems like a restriction on our freedoms. Of course it's unfair to accuse someone of something that wasn't true, but in certain settings, harmless. Can you say "I think he was drunk."? Stating an opinion, but not stating it as fact. Do we hace to start watching ourselves carefully on how we word things?
I mean, in the press and media I can understand, right... but privately.?

Curious curious. Scary too. If you extrapolate.


----------



## officerben (Dec 21, 2006)

And in any criminal situation that has not been through the courtsyou would say "it is alleged that the driver of the van was drunk" YOu hear the media do it all the time, to cover their own buts  
Your comments in your thread are right and safe.


----------



## Aquatic Designs (Apr 2, 2006)

Your right Officer(Ben).  If you were to listen to the words of the journalists carefully. And that goes for all public speakers. They say alleged to have happened. In the latest news story your refering to. The media all said. Alleged to have (insert crime here) happened. And when they find out differently there will be a retraction. Albeit on the last page hidden behind the ads for "The largest auction in Canada". It won't be top story. 

What is freedom of speech when there are rules to what you can and can't say?


----------



## AquariAM (Jan 28, 2010)

Aquatic Designs said:


> Your right Officer(Ben).  If you were to listen to the words of the journalists carefully. And that goes for all public speakers. They say alleged to have happened. In the latest news story your refering to. The media all said. Alleged to have (insert crime here) happened. And when they find out differently there will be a retraction. Albeit on the last page hidden behind the ads for "The largest auction in Canada". It won't be top story.
> 
> What is freedom of speech when there are rules to what you can and can't say?


I agree.

It makes sense that we should not say someone is guilty without that guilt being proven beyond a doubt-- if you were falsely accused you would expect that.

I do however think, from the other side of that argument, that it is ridiculous that in a country with 'free speech' you can't just go around saying whatever you want.. That would be true free speech. Say what you want- but make sure to say it this way, and these are things you can't say = not really free speech.


----------



## Calmer (Mar 9, 2008)

I assume that many years ago someone, somewhere alluded to the falsehood that freedom of speech was a reality when in fact it is only wishful thinking by people subconsciously eluding themselves.


----------



## bae (May 11, 2007)

Libel and slander are not crimes, they are civil issues. You do have freedom to say or publish whatever you like (other than hate speech which is a troublesome issue), but if someone feels that you have injured them thereby, they can sue you for libel or slander.

However, nobody wants to be sued, so there's a 'chilling effect' as we see here. This is also a troublesome issue in a democracy, especially when the plaintiff has a lot more resources than the defendent.

NB, as I understand it, and I'm not a lawyer, truth is absolute defense against accusations of libel or slander. If you can substantiate what you've said with adequate evidence, there is no case against you. Still, few people want to have to go to court to do this.


----------



## Tay690 (May 19, 2009)

Calmer said:


> I assume that many years ago someone, somewhere alluded to the falsehood that freedom of speech was a reality when in fact it is only wishful thinking by people subconsciously eluding themselves.


LOL
well said


----------



## Mr Fishies (Sep 21, 2007)

*The musings of an observer...*

I've never driven a van into a wall drunk or sober, nor spilled bleach in a store, in fact I've never even set foot in a store that has had bleach spilled in it so I can't even comment on that. But...

Metaphorically speaking:

_I can only imagine what I would feel like if someone had cut me off while driving then maybe I swerved to miss an old lady with her daughter pushing a baby buggy and I hit some building. Only to hear in the news that night people saying that I was drunk and irresponsible when in fact I was sober and thought at the time I was being heroic... Even if in the end it turns out that I was sober and heroic, most people will never know or remember me as anything other than a drunk who almost killed 2 ladies and a baby._

Kinda like farting at one side of a room, in the middle of the room someone hears someone say "phew, it smells like he crapped himself" and finally by the time people at the other side of the room hear about it, it's become a rumor and they're saying "he shit his pants".

Rumor, or in the legal and written sense, libel, has a way of distorting the truth with "I heard" and "someone said" eventually becoming "facts" that rarely if ever are revisited with corrections or retractions (or with fine print, hidden in the margin last page reprieves). The damage is not so easily undone.

Does freedom of speech give people the right to say things that are not (known and proven) true when it hurts someone else's reputation or livelihood? I wouldn't want people to do it about me so I think it's a good idea and I always try not to talk shit unless it's fact - whether it can get you sued or not.


----------



## blackninja (Dec 3, 2009)

It is silly to suggest anyone here on a public forum discussing the topic of the week and no matter what the positions they take can be subjected to a libel/slander suit. Libel laws are the toughest in Britain and rarely filed in Canada or the US because the burden of proof is difficult to pass unlike in Britain.. For starters the original discussion was invited by the original party themselves and to have a bunch of people too afraid to enjoy the freedoms we have in this country and enviably the most cherished *the freedom of speech* is to forget who we are and where we are. O Canada!!!.


----------



## Aquatic Designs (Apr 2, 2006)

How many third party opinions does it take to make it fact?

I mean if 10 people said i saw the guy staggering like he was drunk before getting into the van. Does that make it fact?

What if it turns out he had hurt his ankle and that was why he was staggering.

What if 10 people said i was in the bar when he was drinking? Then we saw him leave in his van. 

This is just it. There is no real cut and dry. Except common sense does come into play. If many people say they witnesses something with their own eyes and make the same accusations. It is taken as fact. That's how most cases are determined in court are they not? Truth may not have anything to do with it. As long as more then one story adds up to a better story then the other side it is taken as fact. 

So if one person says something as opinion. That does not make it fact. But if others back up that persons opinion then it is taken as fact. When it may still be unproven. However, if more then one person states the same thing from their own personal experiences. There comes a point when it is solid fact and can no longer be taken as libel. Unless of course those people coaborated the story together and are trying to cause libel. 

Now, none of us would have had anytime to coaborate a story together about the recent incident. We had all made our suppositions and opinions on the experiences we have all had. Things we have seen with our own eyes. And multiple people stated the same things from their own experiences at the store and in there own past experiences with keeping fish and reptiles. 

I don't think the recent incident has hurt the store in questions reputation or anything anyone from this forum said about it. I think the way they handled it and the accusations they made hurt them. I think accusing someone "for sure" from the public is libel in itself. That is not fact until its proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And there is tons of doubt. And many others reasons for what happened to have happened. 

All of us should start a libel suit. Cause in a way we all have been accused of doing this. They have pointed a finger out at the public and have said it was one of you. When they had in fact had no idea what has happened. Other then someones opinion.


----------



## officerben (Dec 21, 2006)

Well said Jason!


----------



## Mr Fishies (Sep 21, 2007)

Aquatic Designs said:


> How many third party opinions does it take to make it fact?
> 
> I mean if 10 people said i saw the guy staggering like he was drunk before getting into the van. Does that make it fact?


No. Actually, an infinite number of people can share whatever opinion they want in a public forum and it doesn't make anything fact. Fact, truth, reality, is based on evidence, verification, confirmation or substantiation not opinion.

If 1000 people say, or are of the opinion he was drunk, but the truth is that no alcohol was consumed then it is not true. It is supposition, guess, hypothesis, assumption (or insert noun, non synonymous with "fact", of your choosing here). Lots of people claimed in courts of law that they knew people were witches, saw them flying, hovering and shape shifting. Even better, hanging, strangling and burning at the stake of thousands of the accused was an act of compassion and rescue...was that true?

I prefer to withhold judgment pending modern, scientific evidence.



Aquatic Designs said:


> <SNIP>
> Except common sense does come into play.


Apparently it does not come into play here... Below is where you lost me as a participant in this "conversation". Have a nice weekend.



Aquatic Designs said:


> <SNIP>
> All of us should start a libel suit. Cause in a way we all have been accused of doing this. They have pointed a finger out at the public and have said it was one of you. When they had in fact had no idea what has happened. Other then someones opinion.


----------



## Aquatic Designs (Apr 2, 2006)

I am a skeptic whilst you are a realist. Our opinions will always be different.

I love how you quote one sentence of my paragraph and then make the same point I do in different words then I used in rest of my paragraph. If you didn't get it how i wrote it. I too said it does not matter how many people are of the opinion. Society still misconstrews the opinion of many as fact. Society is very judgemental.  Hence the reason retractions are on the last page. When if we were being fair and non judgemental we would not print anything until it was proven and retractions would be bigger news then the top story. A retraction would also come as a public apology. 

My point in my last paragraph was the irony of the whole situation. The public is being blamed for doing something and the public is the victim at the same time. And in no way shape or form do i want to start a libel suit. It was only to make the point that someone in the public is both the alleged culprit and with accusations based on opinion are also the victim.

I'm sorry we have lost you as a participant in the conversation. You have a great weekend, too.


----------



## Ciddian (Mar 15, 2006)

Please keep this topic on route... Do not name names please.


----------



## blackninja (Dec 3, 2009)

Gentlemen, the whole idea behind using a hypothetical example is to avoid confrontation..but as we are seeing unexpected turns spring up and truth is the road kill of unintended consequence. In a court a person is afforded the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. But in the public arena people are entitled to their opinions and if expressed with malice to defame permanently without justification the character of the person then it is deemed libelous. I see no such intentions and also see no reason to compromise our liberties in pursuit of the truth.


----------



## AquariAM (Jan 28, 2010)

blackninja said:


> Gentlemen, the whole idea behind using a hypothetical example is to avoid confrontation..but as we are seeing unexpected turns spring up and truth is the road kill of unintended consequence. In a court a person is afforded the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. But in the public arena people are entitled to their opinions and if expressed with malice to defame permanently without justification the character of the person then it is deemed libelous. I see no such intentions and also see no reason to compromise our liberties in pursuit of the truth.


Hear hear!


----------



## ameekplec. (May 1, 2008)

This is a public forum, and the point of a forum is to be heard. Unsubstantiated accusations are one thing, but to talk about the cause of something or voice your opinion on a subject shouldn't be something people have to do with the fear of reprisal. 

If the fact of the matter is that people have gone into a shop and see barnacles, and people say that that store has barnacles in the store, then that's what they saw. Now if they start to conjecture that said barnacles were there because the owners are bad people, then perhaps it's libellous, but to say that "I went here and saw barnacles in the store" is not libel. 

In the spirit of a forum, people should still be able to voice what they saw or see - albeit people should be more cognizant of how they qualify or rationalize these things in light of recent developments.

Also, members who willy nilly throw lawsuits and such frivolous "threats" will not be tolerated either. Attempting to throw jargon one way or another won't be tolerated. Standing behind lawyers and throwing out threats of legal action based on things said over a public forum to intimidate other members into silence or obedience will not be tolerated just as any other threats to other members of the forum will not be tolerated.


----------



## ameekplec. (May 1, 2008)

> Citizens are entitled to make fair comment on matters of public interest without fear of defamation claims. A good example of this is a letter to the editor on a matter of public concern. The author of the remarks may even go so far as to presume motives on the part of the person who's actions are being criticized provided only that the imputation of motives is reasonable under the circumstances. The rule of thumb is that the fair comment must reflect an honestly held opinion based on proven fact and not motivated by malice. It should be noted, however, that some provinces have enacted laws which give their citizens varying rights to fair comment.


from http://duhaime.org/LegalResources/TortPersonalInjury/LawArticle-76/Defamation.aspx Retrieved 06/03/10, 10:10pm.


----------



## Ciddian (Mar 15, 2006)

ameekplec. said:


> This is a public forum, and the point of a forum is to be heard. Unsubstantiated accusations are one thing, but to talk about the cause of something or voice your opinion on a subject shouldn't be something people have to do with the fear of reprisal.
> 
> If the fact of the matter is that people have gone into a shop and see barnacles, and people say that that store has barnacles in the store, then that's what they saw. Now if they start to conjecture that said barnacles were there because the owners are bad people, then perhaps it's libellous, but to say that "I went here and saw barnacles in the store" is not libel.
> 
> ...


***Joy***


----------



## Chris S (Dec 19, 2007)

To put my two cents in here, where it is more appropriate, nobody here has anything to worry about, despite even the worst comments I have read on this forum.

To claim, or intimidate, otherwise is unwise, if only taking good business practice into account.

As for members and staff of this forum - you have nothing to worry about for any past or present comments here. Keep up the good work, and I would still encourage all discussion and opinions assuming they are based on fact, good intention, within reason or motivation and, of course, in the best interest of the hobby.

Plus, I need _something_ to read during my morning coffee...


----------



## Aquatic Designs (Apr 2, 2006)

How is this over morning coffee? I got a threatening email yesterday. And i'm not the only one. A friend of mine did and so did the administration of another website and i'm sure this one too. Telling me that all comments made by everyone have been sent to lawyers for review under Article 296-1 of the criminal code of Canada. The section referred to was the one we are talking about. Slander and libel.

In my opinion and this is just opinion and has no bearing on anything or anyone in particular. People who make threats, try to intimidate, brag, tell absolute lies, try to deceive and are cruel to animals. Have no grounds in a court of law as they are law breakers themselves. They are scum. I step in piles of more respectable things in a farm yard.

We as a group of hobbyists and animal lovers. Should take this opportunity to make sure this can never happen again. We should band together and lobby for the OSPCA to set some guidelines for proper care and animal husbandry for fish and reptiles. One incident in particular should be set as an example of what we never want to see or hear happen again. Cruelty to animals should never happen in a store again and if so there should be an organization that has the power to do something about it.

It's really up to us to make something good come out of this whole situation.


----------



## Chris S (Dec 19, 2007)

Aquatic Designs said:


> How is this over morning coffee?


Because that is when I spend most of the time reading the forum


----------



## AquariAM (Jan 28, 2010)

Chris S said:


> Because that is when I spend most of the time reading the forum


I think he meant that more along the lines of "Here's an even crazier story for you"

I certainly agree we need to prevent people who's personality is more suited to organized crime, pimping, strip club management, from running fishstores in the future by simply boycotting them outright. I propose a full boycott on 'that store' and a pre-emptive boycott on any store deemed to be run improperly by douchebags in the future.


----------



## blackninja (Dec 3, 2009)

Aquatic Designs said:


> How is this over morning coffee? I got a threatening email yesterday. And i'm not the only one. A friend of mine did and so did the administration of another website and i'm sure this one too. Telling me that all comments made by everyone have been sent to lawyers for review under Article 296-1 of the criminal code of Canada. The section referred to was the one we are talking about. Slander and libel.
> 
> In my opinion and this is just opinion and has no bearing on anything or anyone in particular. People who make threats, try to intimidate, brag, tell absolute lies, try to deceive and are cruel to animals. Have no grounds in a court of law as they are law breakers themselves. They are scum. I step in piles of more respectable things in a farm yard.
> 
> ...


How does Article 296-1 apply to you. It is defined as *blasphemous libel* which is expressing opinions on a religious subject and carries a 2 year prison term. You can get up to 5 years if also charged with Article 298. Did you get in as a PM? It could be a prank if there is no official seal stamped on the notice.


----------



## AquariAM (Jan 28, 2010)

blackninja said:


> How does Article 296-1 apply to you. It is defined as *blasphemous libel* which is expressing opinions on a religious subject and carries a 2 year prison term. You can get up to 5 years if also charged with Article 298. Did you get in as a PM? It could be a prank if there is no official seal stamped on the notice.


     

ROFLMAO

Seems like the kind of mistake someone who uses a shower curtain as part of a marine setup would make over their morning back-room coffee and track marked arm bang.


----------



## Aquatic Designs (Apr 2, 2006)

It was sent in a PM. No seal just a we are sending this and all comments made on this site and other forums to our lawyers. And mentioned that section. I didn't go and read the section I just looked at what it was. 

So does anyone feel they have been libelous? I certainly don't. I feel what i have said has been practical observations, maybe a little harsh but not untruthful. What i have said has been in the best interest of the community and the public. Nothing slanderous or libel. Just brutal honesty. Yes suppositions were made on the one thread but nothing libel as I read it. 

Anyone else feel as I do?


----------



## AquariAM (Jan 28, 2010)

Aquatic Designs said:


> It was sent in a PM. No seal just a we are sending this and all comments made on this site and other forums to our lawyers. And mentioned that section. I didn't go and read the section I just looked at what it was.
> 
> So does anyone feel they have been libelous? I certainly don't. I feel what i have said has been practical observations, maybe a little harsh but not untruthful. What i have said has been in the best interest of the community and the public. Nothing slanderous or libel. Just brutal honesty. Yes suppositions were made on the one thread but nothing libel as I read it.
> 
> Anyone else feel as I do?


I'm pretty sure absolutely everyone does. I have never been so shocked and horrified by the disposition and actions of a retailer in all my years.


----------



## ameekplec. (May 1, 2008)

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnd wigglemuffin. People need to calm the Snuffleupagus down.

Remember that kid in elemantary school that made stupid threats and was generally disliked, and lashed out at everyone because his mom was a stripper who brought different men home all the time and who's dad was in prison, and he lived in the wrong part of town and never had a good lunch, probably had a severe case of ADHD which wasn't diagnosed and affected his scholastic performance and was misconstrued by the teachers as just a stupid kid, always had dirty clothes and smelled a little, and nobody ever wanted to be in his group for projects in geography class cause he's mess up the volcano before you got to set it off, never got to go on trips and possibly had rickets?

Yep, we ignored him back then too.

For the record, in case people are wondering, yes, Snuffleupagus is spelled with a 'p', not an 'f' as is commonly believed. for more information on Snuffleupagus, as well as the interesting story of how he became a regular character on Sesame Street, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Snuffleupagus


----------

