Blogger v. Blogger (O, Canada! Edition)

So who is up to speed on Canadian libel law?  Yeah, me too.

Well, a Canadian blogger, Mark Bourrie, is being sued for libel by Warren Kinsella, a Canadian columnist with the National Post, a blogger, and, from his own bio, a "lawyer, author and consultant".

I know you want to see the offending words.  Just so you know, they are workplace-safe and child friendly; in fact, do not read this while driving or operating heavy machinery:

4. Mr. Bourrie's entry on Ottawa Watch at 4:15 a.m. on January 14, 2006 read, in part:

And they remember Kinsella was executive assistant to Pulis [sic] Works minister (sic] David "I'm entitled to my entitlements" Dingwall. Kinsella was the guy who foisted Chuck Guite on the bureaucracy. He was a key actor in the sponsorship kickback scandal. And that scandal is about half the reason Paul Martin is on the skids. (Hereinafter the "Libelous Words").

They sure do scorch 'em up North, ayuh?

To compound the absurdity, this fight is apparently based on an ambiguous pronoun - did you think that Kinsella was the key actor in the sponsorship kickback scandal, or did you ride with the new entrant and figure "he" meant Chuck Guite? 

There's a tip for bloggers everywhere - be clear with your pronouns or you may be sued for $600,000 (Canadian, but still).  As it happens, the author intended to refer to Chuck Guite.

Now, I know nothing about Canadian politics (and yes, ignorance *is* bliss), but a few minutes with Google tells me this - we are talking about AdScam, back when The Captain nearly brought down the Canadian government.  Well, sorta nearly.

Cool.  Blogger sued for poor use of pronoun; beats curling, anyway.  Bring it.

UPDATE:  Some Canadian libel law background:

For a finding of liability for the tort of defamation in Canadian realspace and then as applied to Cyberspace, three elements must be proven. First, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defamatory charge was published; this does not mean that the defamation must have been printed and distributed, rather it is sufficient that the statements have been communicated to a person other than the plaintiff. Second, the plaintiff must establish that the defamation expressly, or by reasonable implication, referred to him/herself. Third, the materials must have been false and, in the eyes of a reasonable person, discrediting to the plaintiff.(13)

As noted by Dietrich, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant intended to defame. Nor must it be proven that the defendant did lower the plaintiff's reputation in the minds of persons accessing the materials and that the plaintiff actually suffered any damages from the defamatory materials.(14) The onus lies with the defendant. As the threshold for what is defamatory is low, the majority of the courts time is spent assessing whether the defendant has one of the defences available.

Sounds like being the plaintiff is the easier side.  On the other hand, if your nickname is "Prince of Darkness", what sort of reputation are we talking about?  And this legal summary gives some oxygen to the defense.

Comments

[jerry]

I don't know what this post is about, I'm more interested in Cheney's blood alcohol level when he shot Whittington in the face. What is the real medical condition of this guy anyway?

[clarice]

If I were a high school English teacher this would be how I'd start out the pronoun section. LOL..Poor blogger. (If they follow the English system it's easy to establish libel.)

[Jay Currie]

Ridicule is good...

Beats hell out of curling and is really the only thing bullies understand. Well, other than a right hook but that is coming.

[richard mcenroe]

"What is the real medical condition of this guy anyway?"

Impaired reflexes. "Oh. A shotgun muzzle. Should I duck? Oooh....

[richard mcenroe]

Although if we want someone to ridicule, we should point out that the Dems ran Kos's boy Hackett out of the Ohio race today.

That makes him O for 16, now. He's catching up with Shrum hand over fist...

[maryrose]

Beware of Sherrod Brown- He just didn't want some fresh-faced Iraq vet muscling in on his rightful territory to challenge DeWine. Here in Ohio we know all about Brown-he sooo isn't going to defeat DeWine. Mike DeWine is a regular guy with, you guessed it good family values. That's what counts in our state. Everyone knows hoe Schumer and Rahm Emanuel started discouraging all the big money dems from hackett into supporting good old Sherrod . One good thing-someone else can run for Brown's seat as he loses to DeWine.

[maryrose]

hoe should be how

[TM]

Although if we want someone to ridicule, we should point out that the Dems ran Kos's boy Hackett out of the Ohio race today.

That post is stuck in draft form. Any day now!

[Jane]

I think it is horrible that you disparage curling!

[kim]

What are we gonna do, Lobster Lady Tweedsmere?
================================================

[nittypig]

Libel is much harder to prove in Canada than in Britain. I think Kinsella will have a tough time here.

Kinsella is basically the Canadian version of James Carville. When Martin took over he fell out of favour and has a bit of an axe to grind as a result. His book is called "Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics" - a funny title in and of itself.

And how on earth is this better than curling?

[Claudia]

Hey - careful! I read your blog while I watch curling!

[TM]

I read your blog while I watch curling!

Avoid decaf.

[kim]

Grind Ethiopian Fair Trade fine, run it through the permanent gold filter, and season with fat protein and carbohydrates. T minus 59 seconds at the Order in Jistaminint Cafe.
==================================================

[kim]

Joe Tomato at the Japaneze Pazta Plaza.
===========================================

[kim]

Chotsa mantute at the Svenska-Nippon Palace.
=====================================

[kim]

A preposition is expected to curl in predictable fashion from its impetus by its antecedent, but the period at the end of a sentence marks a warning sign at a chasm of open water, and to expect the prepostion to transit the sea of ambiguitea into a following sentence is to foredoom any claim for damages to drowning, doesn't IT?
=============================================

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

' be clear with your pronouns or you may be sued for $600,000 '

Or, as Martha Stewart found out, get convicted of not being truthful to investigators.

[nittypig]

So to summarize the case with the appropriate analogy:

Skip Kinsela is playing an aggresive game here. His historically stellar record has recently been sullied. His opponents, skipped by Bourrie, have a couple of counters in play, along with a couple of guards near the hog line. Because Bourrie holds the hammer, Kinsella cannot simply clean house. Instead he's playing for the double take out and a draw. We'll await breathlessly to see if he and his rink can pull it off.

[kim]

Doesn't it fail the second test that it referred expressly to Kinsella? 'Reasonably implied' would apply only if true. Is there a guilty but unprovable conscience. Or is the other party the one reasonably implied?

Should be easy to resolve. Of course, they didn't ask me.
================================

[kim]

Well with Tom apparently shanghaied into Captain's Quarters by one report, Kinsella may not get the press, read 'publishing' he wants, and needs to prevail.

Big gamble. Then again, is there such a thing a negative publicity? Yes. Don't hammer curlers' elbows!
=============================================

[Daddy]

I'm so bummed their Calgirly Curlers hammered our Minnissottette hammers with the hammer, that I'm going out and getting hammered. 11 to 5. Ouch.