notwithstanding yet another failed interpretation from our resident comicInternetLawyer, member Rue, the letter itself states:
Waldo you of course include the personal insult about me being an internet lawyer when in fact you not I play one by you cutting and pasting what you did which does not address the issue of how defamation law suits are used to threaten people.
Nothing you provided discusses or addresses the intent.
At least try provide something that backs up your argument. Can you just once?
Filing a notice of course is the first step in a defamation law suit, no one said it wasn't. The fact that it is filed shows an intent to sue.
Waldo do you think indicating to sue someone who disagrees with you is not a threat its just a friendly exercise in discussion?
Waldo I will now address the issue you do not understand.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication”.
That creates a legal assumption that we are free to disagree and express disagreement over political opinions. What we also know is that if that political discussion incites violence it may trigger a criminal code violation.
In addition to inciting hatred, other expressions in Canada could constitute crimes, such as perjury or distributing obscene material.
In regards to defamation (oral =slander, written=libel), the Plaintiff who wants to sue must show both harm to his/her reputation by a false written or oral statement about that person by the third party plus damages quantified in a monetary amount directly resulting from the statement.
If you can prove defamation it means you could prove damages in a specific amount of money as a result of in this case Sheer's statements.
It should also be noted that defamation law in Canada varies from province to province. In Ontario, for example, legislation on defamation is found in the Libel and Slander Act. Defamation can be subdivided into libel a
If you are suing for libel in Canada, you do not need to prove that you suffered damages—you only need to prove that a false statement with a permanent record was made about you to a third party, and the court will presume that damages were suffered but you still have the onus to prove your amount of damages or the court will not invent a number for you. If you are suing for slander, you usually do need to prove that damages were suffered and you suffered financial loss.
The defences to defamation are:
1. Ythe statement was true; a true statement cannot be defamatory;
2. "absolute privilege,” which means that the communication was made in a venue where people ought to have absolute privilege to speak freely; (applies while in Parliament or giving evidence in a trial);
3. qualified privilege,” ( the communication was given in a non-malicious and well-intentioned context);
4. “fair comment,” which means that your statement was a non-malicious opinion about a matter of public interest.
In the context of two politicians arguing, Sheer would argue a combo of 3 and 4 plus that Trudeau has no way to prove financial loss.
Everyone knows this including Trudeau's lawyers. What we lawyers know and Waldo will not know because he relies on cut and paste and has never practiced law, is very rarely do any defamation law suits filed ever go to court. The act of filing the intent to sue is itself used as a warning to the other side to cool it so to speak. It makes them think twice before saying anything else.
That is the practical application of how its used as any lawyer can tell you.
Now in this case its foolish for Trudeau to have done what he did the same reason it was foolish for Harper having done the same thing in the past: no Judge is going to restrict one's political freedom of expression unless its absolutely necessary to, not to protect an individual ego, but the integrity of the legal system of politics when it deals with two politicians.
It is a given politicians disagree and debate openly and should be able to. This idea a politician can sue another politician for a disagreement is as juvenile as Waldo's constant comments that try personally insult people. They go with the territory. A politician is expected to have thick skin.
There is one other defence to defamation many do not understand and that is that a journalist can report false allegations if the news is urgent and of public importance, and if the journalist made an effort to verify the information. Even if that statement turns out to be false, the public the journalist will be excused from being libel unless after he reasonably becomes aware of it not being true he keeps repeating it. This is not the case at hand.
The actual legal expression for trying to use the threat of a law suit to shut someone up is referred to as a "libel chill" or a "slander chill" and in fact is discussed in many defamation cases.
No doubt Waldo's excuse for not being able to counter what I say now will be another grinning black man and word count.