FiveParadox, your opinions please?

[Simpleton]

FiveParadox, you appear to be an intelligent individual with a flare for Canadian law, might I ask your opinion on some legislation? Specifically, I'm curious as to your interpretation of section 310 of the Criminal Code of Canada. In addition, if you might, I would be interested in your interpretation of section 315 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Thank you.

 

[Finder]

310 is kind of simple. For instance even though I liked the CBC special of Tommy Dougles, it would seem as if the writer somewhat demonized his Liberal counter part as a drunk. In a sence this show may have been in violation of section 310.

For instance I am allowed to say I think S Haper eats babies and is envolved in satanic rituals, well thats my belief. But if I write a book about S Harper and how he eats babies and and then worships Satan at night infront of a statue of Brian Mulroney and I state it as a fact when it isn't then I am guility of defamatory libel if I don't ponny up some good evidence.


Well I know I'm not Five, but just in case he doesn't answer. lol :wink:


Hehehe sorry Five

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: My Opinions ss. 310, 315

In terms of Section 310 of the Criminal Code of Canada, I would interpret this Section as meaning that someone does not commit libel, provided that whatever you're publishing is in reference to someone involved in public life (politicians would be a prime example), provided that the material published is limited to criticism of that person. The Act states that whatever comments are made must be "fair", which gives the Courts much lattitude in interpreting which comments can be saved under this Section.

Therefore, if I were to publish comments that suggested that The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P., the Member for Calgary Southwest and the Prime Minister of Canada was irresponsible, a liar, and acting against the interests of Canada, even if it were published in a book and distributed, I could be saved under Section 310; however, if I were to publish such a book in relation to Ms. Laureen Harper, then I could be found guilty of defamatory libel, since she is not involved in public life.

As for Section 315 of the Code, it seems to indicate, in my view, that one can public libel, provided that it is for the purpose of seeking a remedy (for example, accusing someone of eating babies, provided that the accusation is substantiated, such as through photographs of the baby-eating in progress), provided that the person who is the subject of the commons would have the right or obligation to address whatever it is you're talking about. For example, if I saw Mr. Harper eating a baby, and I were to publish a document urging him to cease his baby-eating practices, then my comments could be saved under Section 315—provided that my comments were limited to addressing his baby-eating (for example, I don't go on to include kicking puppies), and my comments don't exceed what is necessary to get the point across.

 

[Finder]

Five paradox, but, for instance, the Toronto Star can not for instance put on the front page of the paper claiming, Harper (or anyone else) did something which he didn't do as a fact, or they can be charged under section 310. Now There is a lot of area's you can work around on. Using disclaimers such as allegedly, or just printing corrections sometimes will be good enough to get away from being charged under section 310. For instance

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Render&c=Page&cid=1051266777375


Most political criticisms would not fall under this as an offence.


Edit:
Five-Paradox, You could, but if you made an article accusing Harper of eatting babies I do believe you would be liable. "readers, trust me when I say, PM S Harper was caught last night in St John's eatting my step sisters baby. He turned to me and said "it was the best meal he had had in the last six weeks." PM Harper then turned away from me running down the street entering another persons house, from which I could only guess, eat another baby."

I do believe that would be liable. However My law only goes to the collage level and it was a long time ago, so I may remember it wrong.

 

[Kreskin]

Timely that this comes up. What are your opinions on this? I operate a medical site that includes discussions about various private facilities. In your opinions is any of the following considered defamatory libel? Info in brackets changed for confidentiality.

Just a lttle warning..........
Anyone who is even considering going to (name of medical specialist facility)......
Don't............
Unless you want to feel like you are an idiot.......
I was in tears every time I travelled there.......
The nurse administrator (name) is very rude and condiscending and at $100 every time
you have a question...it gets very frustrating.......
Cash only !!!!!! Why ?????

An FYI, the reputation of facilities is vital to their success and our board is the premiere board of its kind in Canada. The profession takes defamation issues seriously and will threaten legal action if they feel it's warranted. This is the only post by the poster so I don't know anything about them. They could be from a competing medical facility for all I know.

Anyone want to put their lawyer hat on and make a comment?

 

[Simpleton]

Timely that this comes up. What are your opinions on this? I operate a medical site that includes discussions about various private facilities. In your opinions is any of the following considered defamatory libel? Info in brackets changed for confidentiality.

Just a lttle warning..........
Anyone who is even considering going to (name of medical specialist facility)......
Don't............
Unless you want to feel like you are an idiot.......
I was in tears every time I travelled there.......
The nurse administrator (name) is very rude and condiscending and at $100 every time
you have a question...it gets very frustrating.......
Cash only !!!!!! Why ?????

An FYI, the reputation of facilities is vital to their success and our board is the premiere board of its kind in Canada. The profession takes defamation issues seriously and will threaten legal action if they feel it's warranted. This is the only post by the poster so I don't know anything about them. They could be from a competing medical facility for all I know.

Anyone want to put their lawyer hat on and make a comment?

As far as the Criminal Code of Canada is concerned, I would hazard to guess that your site is protected under Section 309. Section 309 reads:

Public Benefit

309. No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes defamatory matter that, on reasonable grounds, he believes is true, and that is relevant to any subject of public interest, the public discussion of which is for the public benefit.

Section 309 states that you have not published a defamatory libel, if you believe on reasonable grounds, that what you have published is true, and to the benefit of the public.

In the case of a website that publishes opinions on the poor service of private medical facilities, it could be argued that the opinions are based on experience with the facility, and, therefore, could be construed as being true -- or believed to be true on reasonable grounds -- and in the public interest. It would certainly be to the public's benefit to know that a medical facility is, for example, reckless in their billing, unsanitary, arrogant with their patients, etcetera.

As for people and institutions threatening to sue, they do that all of the time. Most of the time they just do it as a scare tactic, and actually have no basis for bringing a lawsuit.

A few years ago, I operated a little organization called Radio Watch Sarnia, and the then program director, Ronald Edward Dann, threatened to sue me if I didn't stop publishing my comments. He used all sorts of scare tactics. He even went so far as to point out that Blackburn Radio Incorporated retains $1200/hour lawyers, and that there would be no way that I could afford such lawyers. Apparently, Ron Dann failed to realize that when you're bringing baseless lawsuits against someone, you need expensive lawyers. When you're defending against baseless lawsuits however, you only need represent yourself.

I have some voicemail messages that I received from him. They're somewhat humorous, and I'd be willing to share them if anyone is interested.

 

[Kreskin]

It could also be argued that I had no reasonable grounds to know whether it was true or not.

 

[Simpleton]

Re: RE: FiveParadox, your opinions please?

It could also be argued that I had no reasonable grounds to know whether it was true or not.

No, if someone were to take issue with something that you've published, the burden would be on them, to prove that your comments were false. They can't haul your ass into court and demand that you prove your comments are true. Rather, they have to prove that your comments are false.

It's like Blackburn Radio Incorporated. They spent a great deal of time running around trying to prove to everybody that I was lying. Unfortunately, a lot of people believe them (Though not for long; I'm shutting down their entire operation.), but it was the only option they had. They couldn't sue me, because everything that I said was true, and they couldn't produce "legitimate" evidence to the contrary.

So what can they do? They can bluff me and say that they're going to take me to court, but I'm not your average radio listener; I actually have a brain. They had to resort to other tactics. Basically, they had to engage in a widespread defamation campaign, call in their markers with the local authorities, place me under surveillance, and "spin" the situation to their advantage.

Unfortunately for them, they enlisted the aid of police officers that lack the mental ability to even tie a shoelace, let alone cover up loose ends, they proved the validity of my comments and complaints by literally hijacking my operation, and they were arrogant enough to brag about their crimes. In short, they're total f*ucking pieces of shit that lack the ability to do anything.

Blackburn Radio Incorporated is synonymous with zero-talent, zero-intellect, zero-skill, and zero-chance. They screwed with me, and that was a huge mistake! Huge!!!

Oh, and to make matters even worse, they tried to redirect the blame by saying, "We didn't do it. You must have screwed with someone's girlfriend. You pissed off some girl's boyfriend, and they did it. They put you under surveillance. They're slandering you."

I guess somebody forgot to tell them that I'm gay! Read: No Girl!

 

[iARTthere4iam]

Saying something that is obviously untrue, something that is potentially damaging will get you in trouble. If you can prove that you have reason to believe it true you're OK. You can always say bad things about people true or not as long as they can't sue you.

 

[Lineman]

Re: My Opinions ss. 310, 315

In terms of Section 310 of the Criminal Code of Canada, I would interpret this Section as meaning that someone does not commit libel, provided that whatever you're publishing is in reference to someone involved in public life (politicians would be a prime example), provided that the material published is limited to criticism of that person. The Act states that whatever comments are made must be "fair", which gives the Courts much lattitude in interpreting which comments can be saved under this Section.

Therefore, if I were to publish comments that suggested that The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P., the Member for Calgary Southwest and the Prime Minister of Canada was irresponsible, a liar, and acting against the interests of Canada, even if it were published in a book and distributed, I could be saved under Section 310; however, if I were to publish such a book in relation to Ms. Laureen Harper, then I could be found guilty of defamatory libel, since she is not involved in public life.

As for Section 315 of the Code, it seems to indicate, in my view, that one can public libel, provided that it is for the purpose of seeking a remedy (for example, accusing someone of eating babies, provided that the accusation is substantiated, such as through photographs of the baby-eating in progress), provided that the person who is the subject of the commons would have the right or obligation to address whatever it is you're talking about. For example, if I saw Mr. Harper eating a baby, and I were to publish a document urging him to cease his baby-eating practices, then my comments could be saved under Section 315—provided that my comments were limited to addressing his baby-eating (for example, I don't go on to include kicking puppies), and my comments don't exceed what is necessary to get the point across.

Five that is the most original and slightly disturbing legal interpretation I've ever read. I bow in your presence... :lol:

 

[Simpleton]

Re: RE: FiveParadox, your opinions please?

Saying something that is obviously untrue, something that is potentially damaging will get you in trouble. If you can prove that you have reason to believe it true you're OK. You can always say bad things about people true or not as long as they can't sue you.

There are very definite exceptions. For example, you can't reveal information that would put you in contravention of applicable privacy laws. You can't intercept communications. You can't malign someone or something with information that you absolutely know to be false.

For example, you can't say that someone has HIV/AIDS, if you know that the person does not have HIV/AIDS.

Also, if you're a medical practitioner, you can't reveal confidential information about someone, even if it is true. Again, with the example of HIV/AIDS, a doctor or nurse would not be permitted to make someone's medical condition public.

There are myriad laws that protect people from defamation and slander. Among those laws, are human rights codes, criminal codes, privacy legislation, and most certainly, tort laws.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: FiveParadox, your opinions please?

Saying something that is obviously untrue, something that is potentially damaging will get you in trouble. If you can prove that you have reason to believe it true you're OK. You can always say bad things about people true or not as long as they can't sue you.

There are very definite exceptions. For example, you can't reveal information that would put you in contravention of applicable privacy laws. You can't intercept communications. You can't malign someone or something with information that you absolutely know to be false.

For example, you can't say that someone has HIV/AIDS, if you know that the person does not have HIV/AIDS.

Also, if you're a medical practitioner, you can't reveal confidential information about someone, even if it is true. Again, with the example of HIV/AIDS, a doctor or nurse would not be permitted to make someone's medical condition public.

There are myriad laws that protect people from defamation and slander. Among those laws, are human rights codes, criminal codes, privacy legislation, and most certainly, tort laws.

Somewhat of a loop hole here as well. You can mention that the person has aids if he/she has given it to someone else knowingly and thus committed aggravated assult on the other person, since the activity she/he has now committed is now a crime and is now considered public knowledge. However the person contracting HIV/AIDS from the sexual activities which is now considered aggravated assult would not be reported unless permission has been granted.

 

[Simpleton]

Re: RE: FiveParadox, your opinions please?

Saying something that is obviously untrue, something that is potentially damaging will get you in trouble. If you can prove that you have reason to believe it true you're OK. You can always say bad things about people true or not as long as they can't sue you.

There are very definite exceptions. For example, you can't reveal information that would put you in contravention of applicable privacy laws. You can't intercept communications. You can't malign someone or something with information that you absolutely know to be false.

For example, you can't say that someone has HIV/AIDS, if you know that the person does not have HIV/AIDS.

Also, if you're a medical practitioner, you can't reveal confidential information about someone, even if it is true. Again, with the example of HIV/AIDS, a doctor or nurse would not be permitted to make someone's medical condition public.

There are myriad laws that protect people from defamation and slander. Among those laws, are human rights codes, criminal codes, privacy legislation, and most certainly, tort laws.

Somewhat of a loop hole here as well. You can mention that the person has aids if he/she has given it to someone else knowingly and thus committed aggravated assult on the other person, since the activity she/he has now committed is now a crime and is now considered public knowledge. However the person contracting HIV/AIDS from the sexual activities which is now considered aggravated assult would not be reported unless permission has been granted.

This is most true. All criminal proceedings in a court of law, unless specifically sealed by the judge or justice of the peace, become a matter of the public record. Everybody has access to the information, and can publish the information with impunity.