RSS FeedHow not to sue Dragons’ Den
Every time I see the Dragons belittle a sweating contestant from their raised TV studio platform that reminds of Olympus I catch a breath. It’s not Jerry Springer but what if one of the scorned pitchers loses it and throws his heavy business idea right at a Dragon’s head? Thankfully, I’ve never seen such a sight, but at least one unlucky show participant did sue the CBC for defamation after a particularly nasty broadcast. His litigation imploded at the summary judgment motion teaching us something about both the defamation law and the inner workings the famous TV show.
In his judgment, Justice Lofchik summarized well what happened between the plaintiff, Mr. Turmel, and the CBC. A Dragons’ Den producer recruited Turmel for his public speaking skills. No business idea was on the table at that time. Turmel signed a bulletproof consent and release. Then his unsuccessful pitch for “a local currency system for Brantford, Ontario” was taped on May 31, 2009. Dragons showed no mercy. Nine months later, the CBC broadcast Mr. Turmel’s pitch in a one-minute version. A week later, he sued the CBC for defamation.
The CBC brought a summary judgment motion. The rule for summary judgment is that “there is no genuine issue requiring a trial with respect to a claim or defence.” Summary judgment is serious because it deprives one or more parties to a lawsuit of a trial. But if there is no doubt about the outcome of a trial, the court should grant summary judgment to save everyone’s time and money.
The first issue at the motion was Mr. Turmel’s failure to notify the CBC of the alleged defamation in writing within six weeks of seeing the broadcast. Ontario’s Libel and Slander Act bars any claim for “libel in a newspaper or in a broadcast” if the plaintiff didn’t do that. Even serving a statement of claim a week after the broadcast didn’t help Mr. Turmel. The purpose of the written notice is to give the alleged defamer a chance to apologize and correct the record. The courts have held that you cannot expect a defendant to have such an opportunity once the litigation took off. If Mr. Turmel’s claim was for defamation, his ignorance of the (rather arcane) law killed his case.
The second issue was Mr. Turmel’s argument that his case was not only for defamation but also for breach of contract. If he was right, the Libel and Slander Act didn’t bar at least some of his claim. He was wrong. The judge held that even though “one might also glean the suggestion of a claim for breach of contract,” Mr. Turmel signed a rock-solid consent and release that was the whole contract between him and the CBC. Mr. Turmel wasn’t a vulnerable party deserving special treatment, and he could have consulted a lawyer when he signed the deal. The agreement was that the CBC could pretty much show or not show anything taped in exchange for giving him a chance to pitch to the Dragons.
So a procedural misstep in the defamation claim and a failure to plead another real cause of action caused Mr. Turmel to lose this summary judgment motion. Consulting a defamation lawyer could certainly have helped him, but who knows, maybe Mr. Turmel will launch a second salvo in his war with the CBC by pleading another cause of action. But which one?
Pulat Yunusov is a Toronto litigation lawyer.
(Post sponsored by AdviceScene)
Discussing Quan v. Cusson and Grant v. Torstar
The Ontario Bar Association (OBA) Young Lawyers Division has an interesting article by Karen Perron of Merovitz Potechin LLP discussing an event they held with Wendy Wagner of Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP and Ron Caza of Heenan Blaikie LLP on the two recent SCC decisions in Quan v. Cusson and Grant v. Torstar,
After reviewing the decisions themselves, our speakers discussed the impact of the decisions on the daily practice of law in this area. Because a key component of the defence is proving that the journalist/writer was diligent in trying to verify their story, will this now invite a more formal exchange between the media and the subjects of the reports who are, arguably, the potential victims of defamation? Lawyers acting on the plaintiff side are now getting calls from their clients immediately after they are contacted by journalists. What is the best advice to provide to your client in this circumstance? How can you provide an opinion to your client on the merits of his or her case without first proceeding to discoveries to uncover the extent of the journalist’s due diligence? Of course, the counterargument is that responsible journalists should always take the necessary steps to verify their stories prior to reporting them in any case, including speaking to the subject of the report. Will this defence actually bring anything new to the manner in which good journalists function? However, will the responsible journalism defence now impact the public’s interest to receive news stories in a timely and effective manner? How long should a journalist wait to receive a plaintiff’s response in a world where news is a quickly perishable item?
Many other considerations also come into play. How will the defence evolve in light of the fact that the jury has been given the role of determining whether the publisher was diligent in trying to verify the allegations? Also, the defence has not been limited to the media. What effect will this have on bloggers and tweeters? These decisions also introduced the reportage defence, which is an exception to the repetition rule that otherwise holds that repeating a libel has the same legal consequences as originating it. How will the new reportage defence evolve? Will experts be required to testify on whether or not a journalist completed their due diligence? Will a standard of care emerge for journalists?
Good questions. We’ll have to watch the case law to find out.
Beware the libel
Simon Singh, a British journalist and a popularizer of science, is fighting a lawsuit. In his article for the Guardian, Singh wrote that the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) promoted bogus treatments. The BCA sued him for libel. Is it right that our words can cost us dearly? What about the freedom of speech? First of all, let’s find out what the freedom of speech really is all about. Then, let’s see why we have libel laws and what we can learn from the Singh case. The Internet gives everyone a potential audience, so watch what you say if you have libel laws in your country.
The Western culture loves the freedom of expression. In Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms calls it a “fundamental” freedom that “everyone” has. In the US, the First Amendment prohibits Congress from “abridging the freedom of speech.” We value our right to speak freely, and we believe it is essential for democracy. It’s not surprising then that libel suits ruffle a few feathers. But constitutional laws like the Charter and the Bill of Rights protect our speech from the government, not from our neighbours.
Social Media in Canadian Politics, and Defamation and Copyright (Episode 19)
Omar Ha-Redeye gave a talk on the use of social media in politics, focusing on the Canadian scene, at the Miles S. Nadal Management Centre in the Ernst & Young Tower of the Toronto Dominion Centre.
Issues of copyright, including the use of YouTube, are discussed, as well as social media alternatives to defamation actions.
Be Careful What You Post For
Following a trend of the erosion of privacy rights online, an Ontario couple who own a far-right website were ordered to disclose the names of eight anonymous posters related to a defamation lawsuit.
The owners of FreeDominion.ca, Mark Fournier and Connie Wilkins-Fournier, were told that they would have to reveal the names of anonymous posters who attacked Ottawa anti-hate-speech activist Richard Warman. He is suing the couple, alleging that they “falsely and maliciously published and circulated” defamatory comments about him. The Fourniers argued against the disclosure saying that posters on their site behave differently under the shroud of anonymity than as if they were publicly identified.
Ontario Superior Court Judge Stanley Kershman decided that “the defendants are under an obligation to disclose all documents in their power and control.” He cited a case from 2004 in which it was stated that privacy rights must be balanced with the public interest and the rights of others. He also cited a more recent child pornography case in which the judge found that there was “no reasonable expectation of privacy” with respect to ISP disclosure of customer information (this case is discussed in detail at LawIsCool here).
UofO professor Michael Geist disagreed on his blog with the argument that the disclosure of the posters’ information was essential to protection of the public interest:
Protection for anonymous postings is certainly not an absolute, but a high threshold that requires prima facie evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claim is critical to ensuring that a proper balance is struck between the rights of a plaintiff… and the privacy and free speech rights of the poster. … I fear that the high threshold seems to have been abandoned here.
So as the blogger wars heat up below, keep in mind while posting that you can’t always hide behind the anonymity of the Internet.
Chuck Norris’ Tears Don’t Cure Cancer
So he claims, in a lawsuit against book publisher Penguin.
Chuck Norris is suing the publisher for releasing a book called The Truth About Chuck Norris: 400 facts about the World’s Greatest Human.
The book contains numerous allegedly “mythical” facts about Chuck Norris which were collected from the internet. The facts include:
- “Chuck Norris’s tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.”
- “When Chuck Norris does a push up, he isn’t lifting himself up, he’s pushing the Earth down.”
- “There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.”
- “Chuck Norris is not afraid of the dark. The dark is afraid of Chuck Norris.”
The lawsuit alleges that the book resulted in trademark infringement, unjust enrichment and misappropriation of personality.
You will note that Chuck Norris is not suing for defamation. I suspect that’s because truth is a defence.
What I can’t understand is why Chuck Norris is bothering to sue. We all know that Chuck Norris doesn’t step on toes. Chuck Norris steps on necks.
Bloggers, Beware of Comments
According to Out-law, the English High Court has ruled that a man who did not delete an allegedly-defamatory post from his blog could not sue the poster in defamation.
Christopher Carrie, the would-be litigant, established the blog in 2007 to promote his self-published book, in which he alleges that he was sexually abused by the late Father John Tolkien, who died in 2003. Tolkien was the son of an author with whom you may be familiar. According to Carrie, Tolkien’s grandson Royd Tolkien posted a comment on his site, accusing Carrie of lying about the abuse to extract money from the Catholic church.
The court found that by leaving the inflammatory remarks online, Carrie had consented to their publication, which contradicted his assertion that the post caused him “substantial upset and distress”. The ruling is here.
Summary judgment: Leaving the post online for all to see does little to alleviate the suspicion that Carrie was trying to cash in by besmirching a famous surname.
