Mom Makes Website, Gets Sued for $2 Million

An anonymous reader writes "A Canadian stay-at-home mom of 3 recently created a website to report on environmental problems around her neighborhood. The general public and governmental workers lauded her for her efforts. The environmental Ministry spokesman was even quoted as saying 'Obviously we can't have staff everywhere all the time, so we depend on the public out there as surrogate eyes and ears for the ministry'. However, not everyone was quite as happy, as she soon found out, when one company decided to sue her for libel to the tune of $2 million."

Comments

I thought...

[supersocialist]

"The truth" was a solid defense against libel claims?

But she has to prove it, and they've got the bigger pocket books...

Re:I thought...

[ctr2sprt]

I RTFA hoping to get more details, specifically what parts Activa is claiming are libelous. The article just lists examples of complaints Lanteigne has, not which ones are at issue (unless I misread). I kind of think there must be something to this, because David-vs-Goliath cases always result in significant bad press for Goliath. I just can't see this working out well for them unless they can really prove Lanteigne is full of shit.

People will bring up the RIAA suing grandmothers, and rightly so. The difference, as I see it, is that the RIAA believes - rightly or wrongly - that they're losing millions and millions of dollars to piracy. Look at it that way and it makes sense that they're willing to trade some bad press for a lessened erosion of their bottom line. Nothing in the article led me to believe that Activa was being so seriously affected by this one little site.

I guess what I'm saying is there's just enough information to make me think something else is going on here, but not enough to know what.

Re:I thought...

[xigxag]

Guess what, Activa? Now hundreds of thousands of people who knew nothing about this woman's website are reading what she has to say. Good move!

Re:I thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

If all they wanted was to clear their name, the wouldn't be asking for $2 million, they'd just demand that the site be taken down. They want to DESTROY her for her audacity, and make an example of her.

Re:I thought...

[mothlos]

This is the case in most of the world and one of the few reasons I am proud to be an American where the burden of proof is on the plaintiff in such a case. This barrier makes it very difficult and expensive for citizens and reporters in other countries to report on anything. The rule outside the U.S. is, if you can't prove it in court, don't say it. In the U.S. we expect that people will say anything on their minds and as long as nobody can prove that you are lying to deceive then you are usually in the clear.

Re:I thought...

[Senjutsu]

I imagine Canadian law would be similar.

It's not. That's why I posted the link to a discussion of the differences. Thanks for playing "Do You or Do You Not Have Basic Reading Comprehension Skills" though. In a defense of Justification (ie. "It's not Libel, it's the truth!"), the burden of proof is on the Defendant in Canadian law. Canada is not the US; our legal system is not identical to yours.

Re:I thought...

[crucini]

That was my first inclination, too. But I read what seems to be the page in question, and her claims are mostly specific, minor and down-to-earth. The company's claim that she is "high-handed" didn't really ring true. Either she is lying about very specific events, like:

At 5:47 I spotted a high level of debris that has obviously been left uncleaned for a rather long time located at 586 Violet St.

or the company is improperly using a libel suit to silence a legitimate critic.

She is a bit overzealous, treating each drop of diesel spilled as a life-threatening calamity, but she appears to have the law on her side.

Re:I thought...

[pugugly]

No - you can spam the world saying I raped babies and I can't successfully sue you without proving that
a) There's no evidence to that effect
b) My reputation is such that a statement that I rape babies would damage it and
c) I can prove that you said so without making certain minimal efforts to substantiate your claims.

My problem always comes in point b. My coverups are masterful, and my enemies far too lazy, but my rep sucks.

Pug

Re:I thought...

[pugugly]

Due Process - just like all those people at Gitmo, right?

Please, quit trying to claim a difference in legal procedure is a vast cultural divide. I happen to agree with the U.S. system leaving the burden of proof where it is, but to make this into a "Capitalism vs Socialism" issue?

Get a grip. We're hardly perfect, and at least if she loses the suit and files bankruptcy, she can still get her kids to a doctor.

Pug

Re:I thought...

[scruffyMark]

This barrier makes it very difficult and expensive for citizens and reporters in other countries to report on anything.

So, what's the excuse for the American media's failure to report on anything?

I mean, really, with all these great freedom of speech protections in law, why are the US media so often the most saturated with bullshit (not counting reports coming from the Iraqi information minister, and such)?

Re:I thought...

[75th Trombone]

Not that a lot of us Americans aren't idiots, but I don't think you're quite right here. Americans don't make those assumptions about Canada because of geographic proximity, we do so because Canada is generally seen as being, in very general terms, a lot like the US -- or, at least, more like the US than western Europe.

Whether that ends up being true in specific issues varies, of course. But to whatever extent the typical American thinks about Canada, it's usually safe to assume a /bit/ of cultural similarity.

Contrast that with Mexico --- they're just as close to us as Canada is (obviously), and they probably have more influence on us than Canada does, but I daresay most Americans (myself included) wouldn't be nearly so quick to make assumptions about government policies there.

Maybe it's because of the language thing, maybe it's something else. But I seriously doubt it's because of something //quite// so superficial as geographic location.

Typical STFU lawsuit

[Pecisk]

If there were just misunderstanding (wrongfully interperted information), then company would have invated this lady, described problems and how they will solve that and then all problems with bad PR would go away. Of course, if they choose this course, they have something to hide - because it is typical defence nowadays - attack.

Of course, a little bit more details about which claims company thinks are false would be helpful for more concrete judgement.

Re:This is all good

[Sugar Moose]

I don't think you really undestand the way the world works, buddy.

This is not a "you have wronged us, we deserve damages" lawsuit. The company knows she couldn't ever pay $2 million. This is a "we know you can't afford to defend against our coporate lawyer onslaught, so you'll have to settle" lawsuit. If she tried to defend herself, they would ensure the attourney costs would financially ruin her. I'm sure they just want to settle out of court for her taking the site down.

Let's hear it for coporate censorship. If you say something we don't like, make sure you're willing to give up your life for it.

Re:Freedom can only be complete

[Mr. Slippery]

If you don't like a certain form of expression, don't allow it on your property.

...therefore, to silence others, acuqire their property. Landlords can silence tenants, shopping malls can evict patrons wearing political slogans the management disgrees with, etcetera.

Typical libertarian capitalist fallacy that puts property as a primary right, rather than as a secondary tool to ensure primary rights.

Haven't we been over this already?

[ZachPruckowski]

Here are the rules:
1) Money is all that matters.
2) If you are not a millionaire, you are a second class citizen
3) You are not allowed to buy from a small company if there is a bigger one available
4) If something a company sells you is crap, well, too bad.
5) If you buy something from a company, they own you
6) Speaking against anyone or anything richer than you is illegal.
7) It is the government of the companies, by the companies, for the companies.
8) Anyone who doesn't go to the Commerce School deserves to be screwed over

Let's see, we're all guilty of...well, pretty much everything.

Re:Haven't we been over this already?

[TrappedByMyself]

Wow, it's nice to see that you've done a good job of surpressing yourself.
Who needs to bother creating a Big Brother when the cowards take care of themselves?

Re:Freedom can only be complete

[Lifewish]

To me, all speech is a natural right as a form of expression. Swearing, discrimination, yelling fire in your own theater, or even preaching the murder of another. If you don't like a certain form of expression, don't allow it on your property.

But discrimination results in people not being able to make so much money, and thus not being able to own property, and thus not being able to reduce the acreage available for bigots to be bigoted on, and so on. Seems like that'd create an underclass, which never ends well.

I could care less about what media companies might do with the freedom to libel. Who cares. If you're in the public eye, accept it. If you run a big business, combat it with great quality of service.

But how do people find out about your excellent quality of service or great product if the people getting paid to talk loudly are all saying it sucks? The system you describe would allow any company to cover another with as much slime as they could buy, which would tend to lead to horrific monopolies - a classic market breakdown effect. Slime does have an effect, and it's not always trumped by quality of service. Besides, do you really want to produce a system in which only the biggest liars are able to survive? We're close enough to that already without adding fuel to the fire.

Re:Eh

[WestCanadaCitizen.ca]

You're absolutely right that not everyone who cries environmental foul is right, or even legitimate. But when this woman received letters from Environment Canada (like the EPA) about her efforts, this lends a bit of credibility to her claims. Also, the fact that this development company didn't post a rebuttal that disproved her claims but rather filed a lawsuit intending to shut her up and shut her site down makes me think she was on to something.

Re:Freedom can only be complete

[general_re]

I don't believe in libel or slander. Words, in the long run, can damage a reputation -- but creating a quality product will always trump it.

So then, as a matter of principle, you won't be suing me when I rent a few billboards near your house and put your name, address, and photo on them, along with labeling you a known liar, thief, and pedophile. Hope you produce some seriously high-quality products, my man.

Re:Thinking of setting up a website?

[TrappedByMyself]

Before anyone sets up any kind of web site, I strongly advise you to purchase an Umbrella Liabliity Insurance Policy. Among other things, these policies protect you from accusations of libel and slander.
While truth is an absolute defense against libel or slander, you don't want it to cost you your life savings to defend against a frivolous lawsuit because you spoke the truth someone didn't want to hear. For the cost of the umbrella policy - typically around $300 per year you can virtually stop any potential frivolous lawsuit. Such lawsuits are designed to intimidate the little guy and you're much less of a little guy when a multi-billion dollar insurance company is the one that is paying to defend you against the suit.

hmmm.... lets fix this one

Before anyone sets up any kind of web site, I strongly advise you to research an Umbrella Liabliity Insurance Policy. Among other things, these policies may protect you from accusations of libel and slander.
While proof is a defense against libel or slander, you don't want it to cost you your life savings to defend against a frivolous lawsuit because you spoke the truth someone didn't want to hear. For the cost of the umbrella policy - typically around $300 per year you can possibly prevent any potential frivolous lawsuit. Such lawsuits are designed to intimidate the little guy and you're much less of a little guy when you have adequate protection.

ahh much better. Only thing worse than financial disaster is financial disaster after you realize your poorly researched insurance policies really don't help you in your case

Be sure of what you are buying.

Perfect test case for Canada's libel laws

[Hamster Lover]

The U.S. has the Sullivan decision that defined libel and, if memory serves, ruled that the offending party has to prove that the particular writings at issue were made with malice and without regard to the truth. Prior to this the defendant had to prove that what he said was the truth.

This could prove to be an excellent test case of Canada's libel laws vis a vis our Charter or Rights. If Activa Holdings is successful in their lawsuit then just about any negative comment about any company made in the press, on the radio or TV or by the public is actionable. Some provinces, such as British Columbia, have SLAPP legislation that helps in defending such lawsuits but Ontario, where this lawsuit was filed, to my knowledge does not.