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...

[Rayaru]

Actually, they have to prove what she said was false. We'll see if their argument holds up in front of a judge.

Re:I thought...

[TheSkyIsPurple]

Actually, they have to prove that what she was was not only false, but that she knew it was false.

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...

[Senjutsu]

Actually, under Canadian law, to pursue a defense of Justification against a Libel suit, the defendant must prove that their words were true. Quote:

Justification
If a person publishes a statement which lowers the reputation of another, the law presumes the falsity of the statement and the defendant then has the burden of proving the truth of the statement. If it is the truth anyone is free to say it. However, if the plaintiff consents to the statement being made, he/she cannot later argue they have been defamed. Actionable defamation only consists in a false statement impairing ones reputation.

From here, about half way down, under "Canada".

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...

[Senjutsu]

From here, rather.

Re:I thought...

[cheezus_es_lard]

From TFA:
The statement of claim outlines stories by Lanteigne involving diesel oil spills on subdivision sites, unlocked oil tanks, roofers working without proper safety equipment and possible contamination of soil and water.

Activa claims the website has caused damage to its reputation and launched the lawsuit only after Lanteigne refused to apologize and take down the site.

--end cut--
So, it appears she is stating on the website that they have been spilling oil, etc., even possibly as a one-liner somewhere, and not documenting with photographs. If I were her, I'd find some law firm to take the case on pro-bono and spend my money getting GreenPeace out there to do soil/water testing to _prove_ that there has been oil spilled.

Voila, case won, and probably legislation started about this corporate behaviour too, so good for Mom.

I sure hope she has pictures of these spills, to start with... ;-)

Peace!
-cheez

Re:I thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

no, no, no, Canada has much looser women - libel laws are just as strict.

Re:I thought...

[cheezus_es_lard]

A little Google work and POW:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:zQLM8Fs0lo8J:c a.geocities.com/infringements%40rogers.com/+&hl=en &client=firefox-a

Google's cache of her geocities page!

Re:I thought...

[dougmc]

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

It is in the US. I don't know much about Canadian law, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was there too.

But how much truth can you afford? Lawsuits are expensive, for both sides. Though if her story is 100% true (and I see little reason think it's not, though of course I only know what I've read on her site and the news) it's unlikely that this will ever even go to trial. But of course, a lawsuit doesn't have to go to trial to have the desired effect ...

Don't fret too much about her right now. With all the publicity this story has gotten, she will probably have no problems defending herself against the lawsuit, and the company itself is probably already regretting the lawsuit -- even if they're 100% innocent, they've already been tried and found guilty in the court of public opinion.

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...

[nametaken]

IANAL, but the lady I got this from is a Circuit Court Judge...

In the US at least, a libel case requires a few things:

1) The statements must be false
2) They must be conveyed to a third party
3) They must be damaging
4) The statements must be shown to be the product of malice

I believe it is the responsibility of the entity initiating the suit to show a preponderance of evidence for each of these.

I imagine Canadian law would be similar.

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am proud to be an American where the burden of proof is on the plaintiff in such a case.

So... I can spam the world with the news that you rape babies, and you can't stop me unless you can provide hard evidence that you have never raped a baby?

Nice. Sounds like a great system.

Re:I thought...

[Haeleth]

In that cold land of Northern American, they do not enjoy the same freedoms that we do, such as freedom of speech.

Oh, indeed. The USA has much better freedom of speech than anywhere else in the world. Why, here in Soviet Britain, you don't know where you're allowed to speak your mind and where it's forbidden -- I really wish we had designated "free speech zones" like you Americans!

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...

[Lemmy Caution]

one of the few reasons I am proud to be an American

This is a digression, but does "pride" really come into it one way or another? I mean, "relieved" might be a better word. But while we can take credit for changes we help make, and have the responsibility to try to make things better, for the most part we can be as "proud" of the niceties of the legal millieu here as we can be of the weather.

When people positively act on values they identify as ones associated to a culture or place (for example, being friendly and generous, which many Americans can be proud of when they themselves act that way - a lot of Americans feel weirdly proud for other Americans' generosity), then pride makes sense. But since you or I did not draft libel law, I don't see where pride comes into it.

Like I said, this is a digression....

Re:I thought...

[MillionthMonkey]

From the source anyone can edit:

Although the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed specifically to protect freedom of the press, the Supreme Court long neglected to use it to rule on libel cases, leaving libel laws mixed across the states. In 1964, however, the court issued an opinion in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, dramatically changing the nature of libel law in the United States. In that case, the court determined that public officials could only win a suit for libel if they could demonstrate "actual malice" on the part of reporters or publishers. In that case, "actual malice" was defined as "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." This decision was later extended to cover "public figures", although the standard is still considerably lower in the case of private individuals.

In 1974, in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., (418 U.S. 323), the Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff could not win a libel suit when the statement(s) in question were of opinion rather than fact. In the words of the court, "under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea". For example, contrast "I think Jo is a bad lawyer", which is opinion, with "Jo doesn't know the law", which is defamatory per se. In Gertz, the Supreme Court also established a mens rea or culpability requirement for defamation; states cannot impose strict liability because that would run afoul of the First Amendment. This holding differs significantly from most other common law jurisdictions, which still have strict liability for defamation.

In 1988, in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, (485 U.S. 46), the Supreme Court ruled that a parody advertisement claiming Jerry Falwell had engaged in an incestuous act with his mother in an outhouse, while false, could not be subject to damages for emotional distress because the statement, in effect, was of a character as being so obviously ridiculous that it was clearly not true, and thus it could not be libelous if no one would seriously believe it. The court overturned a lower court's upholding of an award where the jury decided against the claim of libel but awarded damages for emotional distress.

What Canada needs is a First Amendment and a few "activist judges" to interpret and enforce it. Capitalism vs. socialism has nothing to do with this.

Re:I thought...

[Sarisar]

And in Soviet Britain if they even THINK you might be a terrorist they can shoot you 8 times in the head just in case.

Yes I'm from the UK before anyone asks!

Re:I thought...

[BVis]

If she has lots of evidence (and, since she's lobbing these accusations and has a website documenting things, one might presume she should have this evidence), then she has nothing to worry about.

There's something lots of people here are not taking into account: The law has nothing to do with the truth. Most of the time they do coincide, but correlation is not the same as causation. In theory, if the case goes to trial, and she can make her case, then you're right, she has nothing to worry about. In reality, the costs involved in putting on a defense most likely mean that there will be no trial, as this woman more than likely cannot afford to mount a defense. There will only be a settlement, and in that case the truth does not matter. The developer has money, she doesn't, therefore the developer wins. Sucks, I know, but that's what we're talking about. (I am basing this comment on my layman's knowledge of civil torts in the USA. If the Canadian system differs greatly, please feel free to correct me.)

Re:I thought...

[Tim Browse]

You Canadians and Europeans can say what you want about the USA and "us Americans"

Don't worry - we're on the case!

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...

[cnerd2025]

So... I can spam the world with the news that you rape babies, and you can't stop me unless you can provide hard evidence that you have never raped a baby?

Nice. Sounds like a great system.

Erm...No...

Two things:

a) If you get news from a spammer, does it really have any standing?
b) The defendant would have to prove that the spammer was false, not that he or she did not rape the baby. Remember, US law says there must be damage for one to have legal standing. It's a much better system. It keeps our police honest and keeps justice sound. Here, circumstantial evidence does rear its ugly head, but you'll find much more that people are justly prosecuted in the US than other countries. I agree with the original poster...I'm glad in this case to be an American citizen. Our lawyers may be the biggest scum bags in the world, but at least our justice system can compensate.

Re:I thought...

[SebNukem]

In America, we err on the side of free speech. But if you can't provide evidence, no one will believe you.

I have proof that what you say is false! 3 words will be enough: "Bush" "WMD" "Iraq"

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...

[drsquare]

You mean we should have actually THOUGHT about this and responded according to facts and logic, rather than just blindly assuming one side is right because it feels good?

Next you'll be telling us to use proper spelling and grammer.

Re:I thought...

[IdleTime]

As a foreigner who has been living in US since 1999, I must say that I wish neither one upon my homecountry. I don't think there is a single country outside USA who wants the same system. In most countries, the American justice system is used as an example in law school of how a judiciary system is supposed not to work, And this thread once again shows the reason behind this. If you are going to put out something publically that possible can hurt either a person or a company, you better have proof to back it up.

My homecountry does not need any additional amendment to give people free speech, it's part of the constitution. But then again, it has a better standard of living, better almost everything according to globally used statistics. So, you can continue to believe in your own propaganda, but people outside this country are maybe not as stupid as you may think. But then again, I find that most of the loudmouths screaming about American freedom etc, have never been outside their own country, so the material used in their comparison is generally missing alltogether.

Re:I thought...

[bigbadunix]

I guess the point is that, the typical American, is silly enough to think that geographic proximity reflects American similarities in other matters, such as law. It's not calling anyone a liar, it's making assumptions such as these.

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...

[Dashing Leech]

"The saddest part of all of this is that this mom is just trying to fight back"

Has anyone here considered that she might, in fact, have done harm to an innocent company? We don't know anything about her or the company. I've known people who think they know everything, what is safe and what isn't, what's the law and what isn't (sound familiar anyone?), and just get in everyone's face. It's quite possible that she is wrong. TFA states that she said roofers weren't using proper safety equipment. Does she know what's proper safety equipment for a worksite? The point is, everyone is just assuming she's right and the company is wrong. Check your assumptions.

As for the "better law" argument, neither is better or worse. The U.S. system gives you more freedom to say whatever but at the cost of having people (or companies) slandered without remedy. The Canadian (and English) system requires that you be more careful about what you say, but means you are less likely to be unjustly attacked or at least remedied if you are. Neither is perfect.

Re:I thought...

[monkeydo]

IANAL, but the lady I got this from is a Circuit Court Judge...

I sure hope not. Malice is only a requirement if the plaintiff is a celebrity or public official. Also, falsity is not necessarily an element of libel, although truth is a defense.

Unfortunately for this woman, she'll have to prove that her statements were true, otherwise, she will probably lose.

Re:I thought...

[farker haiku]

yet another reason to move to canada

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.

Re:I thought...

[flossie]

As Americans we also enjoy the 'Right to keep and bare arms.'

Here in Britain we also have the right to wear T-shirts.

Re:I thought...

[dakotamangus]

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

Based on her website, I think we might be able to take educated guesses at two of the mysteries:

1) What else is going on:

From her site: "Right now the Vista Hills land is up for rezoning. Ironically, this subdivision is already featured in an area phone book and it was on a free commercial map that was distributed to area homes. Even real estate guides have featured the completed Vista Hills subdivision on their maps for four years. The truth is the land is still agricultural. If the rezoning to residential takes place before the moraine is protected this subdivision will be built.

I ask both the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Labour to please step in and see what you can do in regards to protecting our groundwater from Activa. We know their history. The citizens of Waterloo Region simply cannot afford the risk. "

Public perception does not equate to much bottom line for a contractor; government rezoning does. It sounds like she was starting to have some success with the various ministries.

2) What their case is based on:

From her site: " Allow me to clairify once again, this website is designed to facilitate the reporting of labour and environmental law infringements to municipal, provincial and federal officials and to try to educate the public on the subject of safety so they can also make their own reports if necessary. In order to place the reports and to illustrate the existing situations I have to mention where I saw the infringements and what companies are involved. It's that simple."

Reporting on what she has seen is one thing. Charging specific companies with breaking the law is another. If the site simply reported oil spills and unsafe workers it would be one thing. Publishing beliefs about the legalities of the contractor's actions puts on record very specific and disprovable claims.

Regardless she is obviously well intentioned. I hope she gets some help in this.

Re:I thought...

[zsau]

Indeed. I think that a lot of American forget that (I'm pretty sure) the only modern western democracy still without a bill of rights or equivalent is Australia (for which we will pay dearly in the years to come, I fear). So unless all countries that are not the US are equivalent to Australia, then I don't think they "need a bill of rights" or anything of the sort.

(There was even a referendum in Australia on whether we should have a (very limited) "bill of rights and freedoms" in our constitution in 1988; it was rejected by a majority of all Australians as well as a majority in all states and territories and so did not pass. I imagine that the line of thinking that leads to this is we could've done better. Still, I was only four years old at the time, so I don't really know the details. Additionally, while there was some discussion in the lead up to the creation of our constitution, this was in the days when people actually respected tradition, and it was believed that a British Common Law based constitution & the traditions so implied would necessarily prevent anyone restricting the rights that are rightfully ours.)

(It should be noted that our activist High Court judges have interpreted the fact that ours is a democratic constitution as necessarily implying that we must have a right to free speech (for how else could we fully exercise the necessary public discourse for democracy to be meaningful?), but of course this is dependent on who the High Court judges are, and I'm pretty sure that since they've done this they've said gone off and said the exact opposite anyway. And of course I think our activist judges have done a lot more harm than good over the hundred and few years since they came into existence.)

Re:I thought...

[bigbadwlf]

Canada has much looser women

That comes from having sex with us Canadian men.

Re:I thought...

[dnoyeb]

Couldn't resist could you? Always some man to show his hairy ass in the middle of my fantasy :(

Re:I thought...

[yoyhed]

It sucks that even your mind's camera man zooms up on the guy's ass. I guess some things will never change.

Re:I thought...

[808140]

That's ridiculous. Murderers don't give their victims "due process", either, but we still extend them that right. The reason is simple: as despicable as their crimes may be, there always exists the remote possibility (often times not so remote, lamentably) that the person may not be guilty of the crimes he was accused of.

While (as an American) I think the whole Gitmo thing gets brought up a little bit frivolously here on Slashdot, the fact of the matter is that for one reason or another the government of the United States of America does not believe that they would be able to convict these people if due process were observed. Why else would they suffer through the bad press and tarnished national image that having an institution like the one in Cuba has brought upon them?

This is the problem, you see. These "obviously guilty" terrorists are apparently not "obviously guilty" enough. Either that, or the USA is (essentially) publically admitting that its judicial system is inadequate.

Either situation frightens me quite a bit, frankly.

Re:I thought...

[CaseM]

Because the companies the media would harm owns them.

Re:I thought...

[rtb61]

Actually all the company has to do is extend the court case beyond the ladies ability to financially sustain the fight in court and she looses. How ever via the internet the amount of damage the company suffers in the interim and the ability of the lady to access aditional financing and information has grown exponentially, so that she can continue the fight and counter sue i.e. in making the claim of libel against her they are committing a possible act of libel and are subject to counter suit, they are impugning her character in that she would make malicous and libelous statements.

Knowing builders and developers like I do, I can say with out fear of contradiction that they all infringe to some extent in some fashion or othe,r some of the enviromental or safety laws. She just has to prove this, it will be pretty easy to do if all she will need is a little bit of support from knowledgeable people from the industry i.e. competitors, subcontractors with an axe to grind, ex-employees, disgruntled customers etc. (I think they needed their collective heads read for starting something that is pretty well gauranteed to blow up in their collective faces).

Re:I thought...

[DigiShaman]

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

For the last bloody time, terrorist are not entitled to due process according to the Geneva Convention! Read it for yourself. You can see they fail to adhere to parts B, C, and D.

PART I

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Re:I thought...

[1u3hr]

As Americans we also enjoy the 'Right to keep and bare arms.'

Don't forget the sunscreen.

Re:I thought...

[Eccles]

Everyone believed that Iraq had those WMD

The poeple who believed this, believed it because the U.S. government was saying it, with the credibility it used to have. If you lie to me and I believe you, my believing you doesn't make it not a lie.

Regardless of whether they actively lied, however, prior to the invasion the U.S. pressure had gotten Hans Blix and the U.N. inspectors back in the country, with very liberal rules about what they could inspect. I knew Bush and co. were lying when this wasn't good enough, that even with basically full access they were arguing for an invasion because the Iraqis hadn't filed all the paperwork. (Missing a coversheet on their TPS report, perhaps?) Clearly they didn't have solid evidence, otherwise said evidence could have been used to help the inspectors find these purported weapons.

They could be in some other sand laden country even as we speak.

Right. Hussein resorted to hiding in a shabby hole in the ground because he'd been so busy smuggling WMDs out of the country, he didn't get around to getting his family out.

Re:I thought...

[renehollan]

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.

Gee, that'd be a miracle: Last time I lived in Ontario, there was a shortage of 1400 doctors in metro Toronto alone and the numbers were growing -- almost no doctors were taking new cases.

So, yeah, she gets to see a doctor "for free" (what is the tax burden again?) if she can (a) find one, and (b) wait to be seen.

This Canadian happily works and lives legally in the U.S., pays for and gets health care when ever I or my family need it. In Canada it would be illegal for me to pay a doctor to tend to me even if s/he was willing -- this despite that law being overturned by the Canadian Supreme Court (at least in Quebec) -- Canada having an insane "Notwithstanding Clause" in their constitution that lets the government overrule the highest court in the land.

Canucks can mod me down all they want, but, having severed all my ties with Canada, none of my income is taxed to support their crooked, communist, government. The best way I can fight them is to stop feeding them.

Re:I thought...

[Guppy06]

You're a Slashdotter, so we know you can't be speaking from experience.

Re:I thought...

[SoloFlyer2]

RTFA! They did she refused!

Quote from her "Unless I see an injunction from a judge, this website stays"

2million dollars isn't really all that strange... when it comes to lawsuits, lawyers always follow the "Shoot for the moon, at least if you miss you will land among the stars" philosophy...

2million dollars also has a large scare factor attached to it, i'm sure activa don't want to go to court and would happily drop the lawsuit if she shuts down the site (and she is much more likely to do so if she is afraid of going bankrupt)

While i agree that she should be allowed to post any pictures and facts she wants, the problem exists that this is not all she is doing, she is also making wild assumptions and stating them as fact in her comments when she has little to no proof

"There is also evidence of construction workers drinking on the job at this location. A set of two beer bottles was found beside a home being built by Eastforest Homes."

Eastforest Homes could successfully sue her for libel over this comment, She has no proof that they were:

• consumed while the workers were "on the job". drinking after work isn't illegal!
• consumed by an employee of Eastforest Homes.
• consumed on the building site. a builder could of had a couple of empty bottles in his car from the weekend and removed them from his vehicle

Having seen the site. i wouldn't want to go to court if i was her.... she isn't likely to win...

Re:I thought...

[Guppy06]

"I am proud to be an American where the burden of proof is on the plaintiff in such a case."

No it's not. This is a civil trial, not criminal, which means that it relies on something that in the US is called the preponderance of evidence. The defendant (nor the plaintiff) is not given any sort of special treatment or presumption, both sides have to argue their respective cases on their own merits. In the flippant example of "So-and-so eats babies!" the defendant would still have to demonstrate why it is reasonable for them to believe that the plaintiff actually eats babies.

The differences between US states and other common law jurisdictions are a bit more complicated. The only big difference is that, in a US state, there'd be the option of having this heard before a civil jury.

Re:I thought...

[instarx]

There IS a reason they are held in Cuba and NOT in the US. We explicitly do not want to give these thugs Constitutional rights as they do not deserve it.

I guess you better go give a lecture to the Supreme Court then, because that's not what they say. Since the founding of this country US military bases in foreign lands, embassies, etc. have been considered US territory, where the laws of the United States apply. This sort of convoluted self-serving hyper-technical arguement, something a three year old could see through, is typical of the Bush administration.

We explicitly do not want to give these thugs Constitutional rights as they do not deserve it.

Maybe, maybe not, but America deserves better. Besides, if they are guilty what do we have to fear from putting them in front of a judge and jury?

Re:I thought...

[JabberWokky]

Regardless she is obviously well intentioned. I hope she gets some help in this.

"Well intentioned" isn't sufficient if she's breaking the law. I'm not saying she's guilty, but there appears to be a presumption that she isn't... something important in a courtroom, but not outside of it. I could be "well intentioned" when I send a memo to your coworkers explaining that you are subject to fits of rage and beat your wife on a regular basis due to your cocaine addiction, but that does *not* mean that I can't be held responsible.

How about if I accuse you of child molestation on a website? I can probably even get some pictures of you and children together.

Don't worry... it's "well intentioned".

Accusations of crime have to be taken seriously. As part of that, there is a burden upon the accuser to be truthful. That's not a bad thing: it protects everybody from insufficently supported or knowingly false accusations, no matter how "well intentioned" they are.

--
Evan

Re:I thought...

[bickerdyke]

Free speech doesnt guarantee a free press.

Press and media may be free from gouvermental influence, but still be under strong influence from shareholders, ad-clients and so on.

Re:I thought...

[PietjeJantje]

After reading the website through Google cache, I can't see how this case will hold in court. There's nothing there. In short, the woman is saying things as "I see roof workers without harness. Took photos. Am worried Contacted authorities." Etc. etc. She's raising valid concerns. The pictures speak for themselves. How's Activa gonna say "Hey how on earth can you claim to see unharnessed roof workers, how on earth can you be concerned, how on earth can you write about it? Libel!"

Re:I thought...

[nwbvt]

" So, it appears she is stating on the website that they have been spilling oil, etc., even possibly as a one-liner somewhere, and not documenting with photographs. If I were her, I'd find some law firm to take the case on pro-bono and spend my money getting GreenPeace out there to do soil/water testing to _prove_ that there has been oil spilled. Voila, case won, and probably legislation started about this corporate behaviour too, so good for Mom. "

Unless of course she were making it all up, in which case her reputation goes down the shitter and she has to pay up.

Re:I thought...

[OldManAndTheC]

That comes from having sex with us Canadian men.

Oh really? Then why do we keep hearing about Canadian softwood?

Re:I thought...

[mink]

Except he was not wearing anything more then a blue jeans material jacket that did not go below the waist. You can verify this FACT by looking at the pictures released of the poor man.

He was running for the train, for all we know he was just late, or afraid of the crazy white people with guns but no uniforms.

The had subdued him and had him pinned to the ground. They then put 8-9 rounds in his head just in case he had a bomb with a dead mans switch (these are the words of the head of whatever agency was responsible) possibly the stupidest excuse I have ever heard. They are lucky he didn't have a bomb as they would have been killed when they killed him. Frankly I think they deserve to be strung up (or executed in the same manner) for this.

in Canda?

[ShaneThePain]

In the U.S. this is a no brainer, but this crap happens in canada too? I thought they were ALL enviro-hippies there.

Re:in Canda?

[Nugget]

I was going to make a joke about GOTO war versus GOSUB war but in light of the current trend of never letting soldiers leave when they were originally supposed to I figure GOTO is probably a lot closer to reality.

Maybe someday our soldiers will be able to RETURN.

Re:in Canda?

[Nimrangul]

Ah yes, so you're one of the people that believe that replacing a hundred year old tree with a sapling is being an environmentalist?

That's maintaining your own industry, not helping the environment. That'd be like, oh, I dunno, sending some of the used water back into the lake you draw from if you're a Coke bottling plant.

heh

[Renraku]

Bad: Woman rights remarks about your company.

Worse: Sue said woman for more than she can ever possibly make under normal circumstances, breaking her family apart and probably separating her three kids.

They could have made it 'better' by being like "We're glad you brought this to our attention and we're going to fix it. Thanks for your vigilence!"

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

> Bad: Woman rights remarks about your company.

that's right, you can't have people going around correcting things said about you!

Sad state of society

[shanen]

Fat cat rich companies. What's more to say? Even if she finds the resources to defend herself, which is unlikely in such an unfair fight, other people will be more afraid to do similar things. Truth is no defense against a rich bully and a gang of lawyers.

Remember Bush's Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."

Actually, I first applied that to Poppy many years ago, but it goes double for Dubya.

That's it!

[Sr. Pato]

I'm so glad I live in Canada, we don't have to deal with this bullsh.. uh, wait.. what the.. oh crap.

Her site is already slashdotted

[davecb]

http://ca.geocities.com/infringements@rogers.com returns "Sorry, this site is temporarily unavailable! The web site you are trying to access has exceeded its allocated data transfer."

--davecb

Re:Her site is already slashdotted

[TheSpoom]

Umm... Geocities sites get "Slashdotted" after about five visitors. ;^)

Re:Her site is already slashdotted

[lantenon]

Try the google cache.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:zQLM8Fs0lo8J:c a.geocities.com/infringements%40rogers.com/+&hl=en

Activa stole my patented business model!

[Max Threshold]

1. Sue the popular hero
2. ???
3. Watch profits tumble!

They'll pay for this, or my name isn't Darl McBride!

Poor summary

[SnprBoB86]

The summary does not state the womans name, Louisette Lanteigne, nor does it link to her website (it's geocities, so this is a google Cache), nor does it mention the company's name, Activa Holdings Inc.

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.

Legal fee issue not quite true

[rborek]

"In Lanteigne's case, she will have to pay her lawyer regardless of the outcome."

Not quite true. Canada has a loser-pays system, so the losing party has to pay the winning party's costs, but it's usually only a portion (depending on the case - if the judge feels the actions by the plaintiff are malicious and without merit, then the losing party will receive most, if not all, of their legal fees paid by the plaintiff).

Re:Legal fee issue not quite true

[WestCanadaCitizen.ca]

IANAL, but I think that here in Canada it's up to the presiding judge's discretion as to who pays the legal fees. I think you're right that the losing party can or usually does pay a portion of the victor's bill, but I'm not certain it's an automatic rule. Having had one experience with this kind of thing, that's what my lawyer told me at the time, anyway.

Re:Legal fee issue not quite true

[rborek]

That's true - that it is up to the judge, but usually unless results are mixed or one or both parties are rich or large companies and the appeal is in the public interest (ie an appeal on a constitutional issue or an issue of law dealing with the wording of specific statutes) the losing party has to pay costs.

Thinking of setting up a website?

[bigtallmofo]

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.

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.

Re:Thinking of setting up a website?

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Thinking of setting up a website?
(Score:5, Informative)
by bigtallmofo (695287) Friend of a Friend on Sun Nov 13, '05 03:16 PM (#14021837)
(http://www.insurancegenius.com/ | Last Journal: Tue Mar 22, '05 06:26 PM)


An insurance recommendation by a guy homepaged at insurancegenius.com? No conflict of interest to see here, move along....

I agree...

[rolandog]

I've been to a handful of corporations that have radically switched from a 'Covetous' image to a more 'environmental-and-neighborhood-friendly' image. Refineries like Valero (Houston, TX) are among those.

A classic example of...

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

A SLAPP suit. They are illegal in the US.

Re:A classic example of...

[dougmc]

A SLAPP suit.

Obviously. The article even suggested it.

They are illegal in the US.

Did you even read the link you provided?

A more accurate statement would be that `several states have enacted legislation to provide some protection against SLAPP lawsuits'. These laws do not 1) cover the entire US, and 2) do not generally make SLAPP lawsuits illegal. Instead, they change things a little to make it easier to defend against these sorts of lawsuits.

And of course, the woman is in Canada, so US law generally doesn't apply there. (We didn't invade yet, did we?)

Re:Good!

[bladesjester]

There's a big difference between being negligent and allowing your kid to play around a swimming pool or bucket and pointing out where pollution caused by corporations, et al is occuring.

The second is something that affects a lot of people who didn't cause the problem in the first place and can continue affecting people in that area for years.

Whoever moded you insightful needs to have their head checked.

In Soviet Russia...

[slappyjack]

...Libelous statements sue... uh...

In South Korea, only old libelous... damn.

I, for one, welcome our Libelous Housewife... shit.

Uh, well, good for her. Fuck the man. Yeah.

Anyone got a link to this woman's website? I'm giving odds that theres a few crafty animated gifs on there.

Re:This is all good

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not how it works...

The woman pays her lawyer out of pocket. She very likely doesn't have the millions of dollars to spend fighting a lawsuit against a company with very deep pockets. Eventually she cannot afford her lawyer and ends up settling with the company for her silence and perhaps a statement absolving the company. Whether or not her accusations are correct have little to do with the outcome. What matters is if some lawyer, seeing her evidence, is willing to take on the case.

Is the big company a bully?

[ThatGeek]

My first reaction is that the company is scum. It tries to bury the truth instead of dealing with it. But it is essential to know whether or not her claims are in fact false before questioning the validity of the suit. After all, I can't just say something bad about a company that does bad things.

Then again, you would think the firm would go out of its way to disprove her allegations. It doesn't seem to even try. At trial, the firm would likely need to show her statements as false. If she's telling the truth, I bet the firm will crumble. Rather that having all of their dirt come out in open court, they'll use a last minute excuse like "We felt bad for her kids, so we are letting her outrageous claims go... this time."

I can't wait to see how this turns out.

Reports from the local newspaper, the K-W Record

[davecb]

Quoted at an activist site, Rabble. See http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get _topic&f=5&t=001759

--dave (who went to university in KW) c-b

Eh

[Reality Master 101]

It's hard to tell from the article, but there's often two sides to these stories.

Case in point: I have a neighbor. He's an old man with a bad attitude who is basically a crank. He also walks around the neighborhood look for "issues" and is a total PITA if you get on his bad side. A few years ago, my boy (who was about 3-4 years old at the time) was obssessed with hoses, drains and pipes. He LOVED to put together sprinkler systems using PVC in my back yard. Of course, I encouraged him in his hobby, even though my water bill wasn't exactly pleasant news.

Well, the water running down the street just drove my neighbor insane. He tried to convince the neighborhood that the water was going to degrade the street. When that didn't work, he actually reported me to the Environmental Protection Agency (who sent out a very nice woman, who was very impressed with my son's sprinkler systems when I happily showed her around).

And I wasn't the only one -- at various times, he has had run-ins with the neighbors over phantom problems. The guy lives to find issues that don't exist.

So you'll pardon me if I don't necessarily believe this woman isn't a total wack-job without more evidence beyond this article.

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:Eh

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, the two million dollar threat does nothing to preserve or rebuild their image. It is specifically designed to destroy this woman and to send a message to other would-be activists. They are trying to put her head on a pike here and its up to the canadians to do something about it.

McLibel revisited?

[Flying pig]

Time to look up the McLibel case in which two British activists were sued by McDonalds, following allegations of dubious corporate practices. The company incurred vast legal fees, were awarded derisory damages for the part of the comment on them shown to be libellous, and a telling-off from the judge, and the European Court has handed down criticism of the British Government for not providing the defendants with legal aid (summary here). The defendants are still about and campaigning, and I suspect would be only too happy to provide help and advice.

Of course, if these developers had nothing to worry about, they would have doubtless been able to convince everybody of the truth of their case without recourse to litigation.
Any environmental scientists in Canada with soil sampling equipment who might be prepared to volunteer to go and do some soil analysis to help the defence prepare its case?

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.

troll

[platyduck]

Parent as +2 insightful?? Mod down, please.

Nice assumption about rich stay-at-home moms, but my family had five children, my mother stayed at home, and we lived below the poverty line. I think that's more typical than the rich "busy-body do-gooders". Sorry to burst your own little self-righteous bubble.

Makes me mad...

[Pyrosz]

I will NEVER buy anything related to Activa Holdings Inc. If that is how they behave when someone challenges them, then I will not support their company or any company that works with them. Since I'm in the market for a house, I will make sure that my future house was not built or supported by any company related to Activa Holdings Inc.. If they feel they have been wronged by what was posted on the website, maybe they should show how it is wrong. By sueing, its saying to me that they have something to hide. I hope there will be a way to give and support the fight against Activa. Companies that sue like this, are not companies that we need.

Re:Makes me mad...

[jadavis]

What if her statements are false? Lawsuits exist for a reason, and since we don't have the facts, you have no way to know that a lawsuit was unjustified.

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.

Found the site!

[slappyjack]

This is supposedly the URL:
http://ca.geocities.com/infringements@rogers.com

of course, its exceeded its transfer alloted for the day, so its down.

Typical. It IS cached by google, though.

Found some info here:
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get _topic&f=5&t=001759

Theres some info with contact information for the woman and the company.

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.

Here's her site

[Junky191]

Seems to be offline but here's the google cache link if you're interested: http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:zQLM8Fs0lo8J:c a.geocities.com/infringements%40rogers.com/+Louise tte+Lanteigne&hl=en&client=firefox-a

She has a lot to lose

[AutopsyReport]

I'd like to think she is telling the truth, but I've known many types that will complain about anything. However, I've been around enough construction sites to know that the professionalism can be very sloppy and can induce the sort of incidents she described. This happens everyday.

Now, the problem I have is that even if she drops the website and the company continues to pursue the lawsuit, she has so much to lose. She's risking the well-being of her three kids to battle a libel case, one which she (presumably) has no funds to support. I'm not suggesting its wrong to take a stand, but I know first-hand what it is like to battle a corporation when you are being sued. My best friend was sued $150,000 by a company (he had an accidental fire in the house he was renting) and lost everything. The company never got a dime from him, but he was forced into bankruptcy, fell behind on all his bills, and to this day is still being tracked by companies trying to collect for unpaid bills. He lost to the one with financial superiority, and this really threw his life off course -- all over an accidental fire. Now he can't get a mortgage, credit cards, or much else.

If I was in this woman's position, I'd value the well-being of my kids over battling a corporation, because odds are she will not walk away from this in a better position than she was before this lawsuit started.

Re:She has a lot to lose

[Lifewish]

I read her site (google cache link) and among the issues she raises are:

• Contamination of groundwater - "Our moraine provides 300,000 people with ground source drinking water. We're the largest region in North America dependant on ground water. This moraine is one of the major sources for the Grand River and that is the only source of drinking water for Brantford, Brent County and Six Nations."
• Danger to kids
  • from shoddy construction - "The KW record published that an 8 year old boy was killed in Montreal by falling wooden pallets on an unfenced Construction site and charges may be laid against the owners of the site."
  • from dangerous chemicals - "I have seen kids playing in a stagnant pond of water that was 4ft deep. It was filled with building debris including paint cans, fiberglass insulation, pressure treated wood, oil residue and tadpoles." "Parents should be aware that Pressure Treated wood is not safe. It contains many chemicals including arsenic and it's a known carcinogen."
  • from building debris - "I decided to speak to one of the folks who were outside with their three year old child. The yard was not completed and there was debris, including a half buried 2 by 4 sticking out of their yard with rusty nails in it. ... The condition of the yard was so poor they couldn't allow their child to play outside at all."
• Dangerous personnel behaviour - "At another area construction site, unharnessed roofers and workers without hard hats were spotted working in the vacinity of high school students who were part of a federal Youth Training Program."

So I'd say she's valuing the well-being of her kids and those around her here, especially given the number of such cases detailed on her site.

That site was pr0n for the builder's attorneys

[joelsanda]

... MILS ... Mothers I'd Like to Sue ...

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.

One word: Countersuit

[Stephen Samuel]

If I were here, I'd not only refuse to settle, I'd file a countersuit.

If their actions have placed her kids at risk and (been part of what) led her to spend the expense and time of putting up the website to document their illegal actions, that should be just cause for a countersuit against them.

Sue them for direct costs, her time (at a consulting rate of $60/hour), and punitive damages of $2Million. If they have said anything public about the suit (like claiming that she lied), then she can also countersue for libel. (In Canada, You can't sue for statements made in court or court documents, but you can sue for what's said on the courtroom steps before or after you file.)

Re:Freedom can only be complete

[dada21]

I own stores, they're my property. If I don't want a communist shirt on my property, it's my right.

If I'm a landlord and I don't like a tenant, I shouldn't be forced to accept them. It is my property.

Yes, some racist white guy may say no to a black family. What stops another landlord from saying no problem? Competition opens doors shut by others.

Why not check out her web site!

[farrellj]

Thank you, Google Cache!

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:zQLM8Fs0lo8J:c a.geocities.com/infringements%40rogers.com/+Louise tte+Lanteigne+&hl=en&client=firefox-a

ttyl
          Farrell

Re:Freedom can only be complete

[jcr]

even preaching the murder of another.

Drop dead.

-jcr

Not if it will hurt their bottom line to fix it...

[clayasaurus]

We need the government to enforce environmental laws, because you can't sue the government.

Active Contact Info -- Let's Fight Back

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is Activa's contact info for all you slashdot do-gooders. I'm posting as AC as I live in Canada and don't want to be sued by them (I actually live in one of their subdivisions), so please MOD thos up.

Name Werner Brummund
Job Title President / CEO
Postal Address Activa Group 735 Bridge Street West Waterloo ON N2V 2H1 Canada
Phone 5198869400
Fax 5198868955
Email kyantz@gto.net

No insurance for defense from criminal acts

[John Jorsett]

>>Before anyone sets up any kind of web site, I strongly advise you to purchase an Umbrella Liabliity Insurance Policy.

Will this also work for copyright infringement, I.E. P2P, BITTORRENT, ECT? If so, this might be a good investment for us all.

Speaking from near-total ignorance, I'm guessing no. Slander/libel is a tort, while copyright infringement is a criminal case. I've never heard of insurance that would defend you against prosecution for criminal acts. In fact, I'd argue that such insurance would be a bad thing, since it would make people more likely to commit crimes.

As I said, though, this opinion is straight from my butt.

Hooray for loser-pays

[Kohath]

This case shows the merit of the loser pays rule.

It's the only way civil court proceedings can be made even remotely fair -- instead of the extortion/lottery they are in the US right now.

Re:Hooray for loser-pays

[amliebsch]

There are also problems with the "loser pays" rule. One is that it would discourage the opposite scenario here: knowing she would have to pay if she loses, would this women even consider suing the polluters? It discourages meritless lawsuits, but at the expense of also discouraging meritorious lawsuits, and the meritorious ones are discouraged right at the margin where they are particularly usefull. Another problem is that it strongly discourages the ability of groups like the ACLU or NRA to file "test cases" to challenge the exact meaning of unclear judicial rulings or legislations, leaving the law in a more muddled and possibly unjust state. Finally, it encourages wealthier parties to intentionally run up their legal expenses, to try to force the less wealthy party to withdraw opposition once their cost-benefit expectation climbs too high. In poker, terms, this is exactly the same as raising the stakes to make the other players fold.

The loser-pays rule is appropriate in some circumstances, which is why judges should always have the option to allocate legal fees. But it is not a panacea.

Re:Hooray for loser-pays

[Mateorabi]

Unless she loses because they hired a whole slew $400/hr lawyers who were better than the single $100/hr lawyer she could afford. Loser pays just discourages the small guy from filing suit, because even if there is only a 10% chance of failure the corporation can screw him by hiring the best/most expensive legal costs possible.

Loser pays the would possibly work a bit better if you were forced to pay the other side the equivalent ofyour legal fees instead of theirs. I.e. if you loose your legal fees can only double (if your lawyer doesn't give you a "win or I'm free" gaurantee.)

The added bonus is that both sides are encouraged to make the case more breif, with fewer lawyers involved.

Re:Hooray for loser-pays

[rark]

Damn.

I was injured by a medical fuck up years ago, and when I tried to file a malpractice suit I discovered that I flat out didn't have the money to even file, much less pay a lawyer (hospital lawyers vs IANAL doesn't strike me as a fair fight). I suppose it does make it fairer to raise that bar even higher.

Since the larger institutions (companies, hospitals, whatever) with the deeper pockets and the larger (more expensive) teams of lawyers already have the advantage, something tells me involving the risk of having to pay that team of lawyers isn't going to help people who really have grievances that need to be dealt with in court.

aaa

[akhomerun]

i don't know what activa's all angry about, slashdot probably just took down her site anyway.

An unspeakable outrage!

[Hosiah]

Upon viewing the Google cache of her page, if even one tenth of this is true, that Activa Holdings, Inc. needs to be fined for all it has by the government and then shut down.

From the site:
"I saw a suspicious looking diesel tank. I took a closer look and saw it was intentionally supported on a pile of scrap wood on a tilt. That's when I noticed the rubber hose. The hose was being used to syphon the diesel fuel and below it was evidence of a spill. The area smelled strong and the ground was saturated."

So, essentially, she had a nice suburban neighborhood and then somebody came in and dumped a tanker of diesel fuel all over the place. Yeah, I'd be pissed, too, if that happened on my street. I'd be demanding a cleanup.

And:
I saw many unharnessed roofers and dozens of workers without hard hats actively working on site. This one unharnessed roofer was quite a site to see. The yellow cable in the roof photos is the extention cord for the nail gun this fella was using while working on a roof of the house at 23 Big Springs Court. He squatted down on the wood of the roof and slid down it like a slide.

Now, this is probably not her business. But still, this speaks of massive unprofessionalism. Some guys may be too macho to use safety harnesses, but every site I've ever been on required hard hats *everywhere*, even with nothing overhead. I don't know how things are regulated in Canada, but here in the USA that sounds like tens of thousands of dollars in OSHA fines, just for starters. Still other reports seem kind of iffy. Empty beer bottles can be left by any passing gaggle of kids - pictures of workers on the job in the daytime with the bottles in their hands would have been more damning.

It looks like she might have had pictures, but they're not coming up in the Google cache. Pity, as even a photo or two would confirm this. I pray for her sake that this gets the throwing out of court that it most probably deserves. As for Activa Holdings, stupid move. Before, they had one website bad-mouthing them, now they've got half of Slashdot.

Re:An unspeakable outrage!

[Citizen of Earth]

So, essentially, she had a nice suburban neighborhood and then somebody came in and dumped a tanker of diesel fuel all over the place. Yeah, I'd be pissed, too, if that happened on my street. I'd be demanding a cleanup.

The thing about Waterloo, as mentioned in the Google-cache version of the web page, is that the entire region of around 300,000 people depend entirely on ground water drawn from wells. This makes the problem of leaky fuel tanks particularly important in that area.

Re:An unspeakable outrage!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure what they do up in Canada, but in my neck of the woods, we grout or otherwise ensure a seal around the well casing to positively prevent ground water from entering. I'll bet she doesn't have half a clue regarding the subject matter she raises.

The roofer was using a "yellow cable" cord for his nailer? More likely it was an air hose. She saw a siphon hose by the diesel tank?

Not too many folks who bring a fuel storage tank to a jobsite use a siphon to retrieve the fuel; they usually use a pump. Maybe it and the spill were from some careless thieves (who left their beer bottle behind)?

Hard hats prevent heat stroke? Now I know she doesn't have a clue. Anyone who's ever worked in the hot sun wearing a hard hat will tell you they do the opposite of cooling your head; though it is a task at which they excel during winter.

A family has a yard that's not been finished yet and she's bitching because the kids can't play in it. Maybe the folks cut a deal with the contractor whereby they'd take care of finishing the lawn installation themselves? (Probably wasn't even anywhere near her neighborhood -- as I recall from reading the pictureless cache of her site it sounded rather like she'd travel around to different developmental jobsites snooping for any type of infraction.)

I wonder if maybe one or more of her kids were sired and abandoned by a construction worker or construction manager and she's on a vendetta because of it. That and/or perhaps she'd had a legitimate (regarding her own place) complaint and didn't receive satisfaction, so she's become a busybody, sticking her nose way into other folks' business.

Sad to say, but she's probably mistaken about enough of the stuff that her reporting it publicly on the 'Web and to governmental officials may actually constitute libel/slander.

Brutal

[rinkjustice]

How does the management of Activa Holdings Inc. sleep at night? There are so many better ways this company could deal with this problem. The company is worried about slander, about their reputation being sullied? They're making themselves look worse and drawing even more attention to their alleged environmental crimes.

I guess the important thing to do is follow up on this story. Write, phone, fax or email the CEO of Activa Group, Werner Brummund at:

Activa Group
735 Bridge Street West
Waterloo ON
N2V 2H1
Canada

Phone 5198869400
Fax 5198868955
Email kyantz@gto.net

Send letters and emails of support and/or financial support to:

Louisette Lanteigne,
700 Star Flower Ave,
Waterloo Ont.
N2V 2L2
Canada

butterflybluelu@rogers.com

We should spread the word about this, the more people who know about this David and Goliath fight, the better. The worst thing we can do is just shake our heads in pity and forget about this whole thing.

Btw: what materials does Activa Group sell?

Re:Brutal

[haeger]

How does the management of Activa Holdings Inc. sleep at night?

On a pile of cash would be my guess.

.haeger

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.

No Surprise

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

I'm not surprised that the builder is trying to screw over the lady, while making a huge mess of their construction site.

The 'Award Winning' company that built my townhouse in Burnaby BC ... Adera ... is the same kind of company.

They knowingly built my whole complex below code. You can not get a queen sized mattress to the top floor going up the stairs, they are too narrow (yes, this is a building code they ignored). In fact some of the original owners here forced Adera to buy special two-piece mattress sets.

Then there's the brutal water heating system. They knew damn well that once the place had sold out, the water heater system would be totally inadequate and prone to breakdowns, forcing our strata to look into a Boiler system.

Then there's the creaky floors due to various other codes being ignored, such as distance between the stringers, and the methods of tying down the floor.

Then there's the fact that every damn outlet in the house is crooked, the builders couldnt take 2 seconds to level them, not even the ones cut through tiles!

And how about the severe cracking in the cement foundation in part of our underground parking.

And the insufficient gutters and downspouts, built below code, that overflow in a heavy rain.

And there's the landscaping that has been eroding away due to poor construction, one person has pretty much lost their back yard.

Our building is only 6 or 7 years old. These are just the bigger problems ... again all from an AWARD WINNING building company! No wonder there's so many leaky condos in this city.

I wish the lady luck, take down those bastards ... even though they will simply shut down, start up under a new name, and carry on with their crap.

Re:No Surprise

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Yes, the builders may just facilitate the building ... but they need to be responsible for the quality of the finished work, not just for minimizing the dollars spent.

Adera has been forced to do some repairs, such as fixing all the popped bits of drywall where they didnt let the mud dry properly before painting it.

They get away with it by not getting all the building permits they need, so inspectors arent necessarily aware of all the work being done, or they enclose in parts of their work before the inspectors come around because most of the lazy inspectors wont force the contractors to open things back up for proper inspection.

Then there's the public inspectors you hire when buying a place (as opposed to the city building code inspectors) ... Our inspector never signed his inspection form. The bank didnt seem to care for our mortagage, they accepted it, but really if there's a problem, that inspector's ass is covered because his name isn't on it. We know better now for our next home.

But mainly most of the bad work in this city is because ... they just do bad work, sell the product, shut down, open under a new name. The criminals can't be tied back to the previous company.

I'm not worried about resale value, Vancouver is insane. This townhouse has gone up in value from $200,000 to $300,000 in 4 years time. The trick will be to sell before the problems start costing us in repairs i guess.

Re:No Surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

"Our building is only 6 or 7 years old. These are just the bigger problems ... again all from an AWARD WINNING building company! No wonder there's so many leaky condos in this city."

I work in the industry as an architectural specifier. Bulk of my work in the last few years has been residential. The nature of the economy, both Canadian and American (I've worked in both) is such that it's a solid monetary investment for a venture capitalist. The return, while notspectacular, is better, and more stable, then investing in stock. Classis real estate/stock investing economic cycle. The result is a SHITLOAD of developers, who have very little understanding of architecture, or civic pride, or idea of a working neighbourhood, or anything else, really. Monetary bottom line the only measuring stick.

Thus, residential architecture has really become a beast of the profession.
In commercail, retail, industrial, educational architecture we have standards. Quality assurance is followed, when it comes to material quality, construction standards, installation procedures and so on.

One of the last projects I worked on (8 storey condo in Brooklyn) durring the meeting, it kind of became obvious that it was pointless for me to prepare documents regarding site protection, excavation, environment protection, when the owner already has dug out the site and was pouring the foundation based on architect's design documents!!! (as opposed to construction documents) what can you do?

For example, in the meeting, the decision was made regarding wood flooring. Instead of using sleepers and sound attinuation underlayment underneath the flooring, the owner has decided to glue the wood straight down to concrete. The buyers will never be able to tell anyways, so who cares? I've seen hundreds of such examples on any residential projects I've been involved in.

Profession of Architecture is mostly a self regulating field, and it works just fine. The only governmental involvent is in regards to life safety (building code) and environmental protection. The passion for profit (developer) greatly outweights architect's code of conduct (owerworked, underpaid).

I had the misfortune of living in the city mentioned in the story (Waterloo, Ontario) The developments in question are in the area that were all corn fields not too many years ago. The cardboard boxes...err...houses came up at an alarming rate, and I guess the area is still being developed. For these types of structures, an architect is not even required. (under 5000 sq/feet less then 3 storey, Ontario Building Code, if I remember correctly). The fact that the developers are not too on top of environmental laws, is just an underlying symptom of a much larger problem. Our cities, our neighbourhoods, our lives are designed and managed by incompetent types.

Chaos theory at it's finest. Let's hope for HAPPY mistakes.

Mod parent up.

[RealityThreek]

Also, go read the woman's site if you haven't already. The entire website is full of "I saw this, I took pictures of that. Activa is the developer of this site."

How can it be libel if she is simply reporting what she sees? It's obvious from her tone that she has concern for her neighborhood including many sincere warnings to parents in the area about specific threats (stagnant water, pressure treated wood).

I'm at a loss here as to what Activa's case is.

Re:Mod parent up.

[Bilestoad]

"How can it be libel if she is simply reporting what she sees?"

Too many people assume that all countries have the same laws. In some countries, truth is NOT a defence. If in truth you are a thieving, acne-scarred, malodorous butt-pirate and I call you one in a public forum, all you have to do is prove that your reputation has been hurt, not that it isn't true.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

Alarmist

[briancarnell]

The woman appears to be quite the alarmist. For example, she falsely states that pressure treated wood is not safe since it is treated with, among other things, arsenic. Such wood is safe if handled properly.

On the other hand, she doesn't say anything on there that is immediately libelous as most of it is "i saw this happening the other day at the site."

I've always wondered what the internal culture is in companies that leads them to launch suits like this, as they almost always backfire even if they are won. The McDonald's lawsuit against a couple of people distributing anti-McDonald's pamphlets, for example, certainly led to much more anti-McDonald's media coverage than a couple of nutty activists could ever have managed on their own.

Re:Alarmist

[Anonymous Coward]

As you said pressure treated wood can be safe if handled porperly. How ever looking at the website her main concern is that the local kids are playing with this and might not handle this properly.

Re:Alarmist

[alragh]

"she falsely states that pressure treated wood is not safe since it is treated with, among other things, arsenic. Such wood is safe if handled properly."

Did you read your link?

Use-Site Precautions:

* All sawdust and construction debris should be cleaned up and disposed of after construction.
She has suggested that debris was left lying in puddles that children were playing in
from dangerous chemicals - "I have seen kids playing in a stagnant pond of water that was 4ft deep. It was filled with building debris including paint cans, fiberglass insulation, pressure treated wood, oil residue and tadpoles." "Parents should be aware that Pressure Treated wood is not safe. It contains many chemicals including arsenic and it's a known carcinogen."


* Treated wood should not be used where it may come into direct or indirect contact with drinking water, except for uses involving incidental contact such as docks and bridges.
From the website being sued
Contamination of groundwater - "Our moraine provides 300,000 people with ground source drinking water. We're the largest region in North America dependant on ground water. This moraine is one of the major sources for the Grand River and that is the only source of drinking water for Brantford, Brent County and Six Nations."

just planned a "save the earth" site :(

[dindi]

My wife and me, her being a conservation biologist, me just your regular treehugger, were planning on making a site here ins Costa Rica, based on photos we would take riding around the country, me on my bike, her on her quad (both silenced, small bore, so don;t flame about exhaust fumes and saving the earth ....

There are a bunch of local and foreign companies making serious damage, and we want to give it some exposure, besides riding around on our vehicles ....

quite honestly that news piece made us think about how many companies would want to sue our asses if we get noticed .... so not we are re-thinking our strategy ...

Our plan was to sneak around various industrial installations with a GPS and a digicam, and then post it blog-style with the help of goolge maps api ........ but now we are really reconsidering ....

Would YOU have the balls?

Re:just planned a "save the earth" site :(

[kyhwana]

Try doing it anonymously, if you can?

Counter sue on financial grounds

[theolein]

The lady should counter sue the company for attempting to drive her into bankruptcy. She should sue for percentually as much, based on the company's income, as the company is suing her, i.e. if her yearly income is $60'000 and she get's sued for $2million, then if the company's yearly income is $10million then she should sue for $400million. She should plainly state that she is counter suing because the company is maliciously attempting to drive her into bankruptcy with an amount that she could never pay instead of just suing to get her to close down the website.

She might not win, but it would provide precedence for annyone who is harrassed by giant companies in the future. (Hallo RIAA, did you hear that?) IT sure would be good to see some of those corporations think twice before abusing their power in future.

Re:Counter sue on financial grounds

[justins]

She should sue for percentually as much,

Before she can do that, someone will have to invent the word "percentually".

I guess it is good and all...

[RexRhino]

I guess it is good and all that this women is documenting potential enviornmental problems in her subdivision... But really, a subdivision is a big giant enviornmental problem! It is kind of like driving a SUV, and then being pissed off because those people driving Hummers are wasting fuel.

It sucks that the woman is getting sued, that is an outrage. But I wouldn't glorify what this woman is doing too much. She seems more the neighborhood busy body who calls the police when kids are playing touch football in the street, or who get a restraining order to keep their neighbor from painting their house purple, than some real enviornmental crusader.

OT tadpoles

[e144539]

"I have seen kids playing in a stagnant pond of water that was 4ft deep. It was filled with building debris including paint cans, fiberglass insulation, pressure treated wood, oil residue and tadpoles."

Damn slimy tadpoles, polluting our ponds.

Bwahh haha

Re:Freedom can only be complete

[dada21]

I'm generally not discriminatory, but I am prejudice. I don't see anything wrong with private non-violent racism.

A restaurant who refuses to serve midgets is a Bad Idea. I won't eat there. But to me, the OWNER of the PROPERTY is free to use his property that way.

Racism and discrimination by government is terrible. As a biracial person, I hate government discrimination but I will protect the private individual's right to congregate with whomever they want.

... and images

[Anonymous Coward]

http://images.google.com/images?q=http://ca.geocit ies.com/infringements%40rogers.com&svnum=10&hl=sv& lr=&start=0&sa=N&filter=0

Re:Freedom can only be complete

[dada21]

No, that's not it. Let me boil it down:

I want my private properties to be private. I want to invite who I want to, and avoid who I want to.

It is not your property.

You want to tell me what I can do with my property. You want to force me to congregate with either everyone or no one. I have to rights in my property according to you. I have to be your slave, invest my time and money so you can create your better world, your utopia for all.

I don't care about that. It is my property. My private property.

Trial by Combat

[CodeBuster]

There was at one time in the western system of jurisprudence the notion of a Trial by Combat whereby the acused had the right to compel the acuser or his champion to engage him (the defendant) or his champion in a judicially sanctioned duel whereby the judgement of God would decide the winner. The theory being that God would strengthen the arm and sharpen the skills of the party representing the truth thereby allowing him or his champion to overcome the guilty or his champion. Although there is little evidence in the modern context to prove it, I would bet that society in general would be more civil and courteous if one risked life and limb by slandering his neighbor or falsly acusing him. How many corporate executives would acuse people of slander or insult them in public if they had to face the defendant or his champion at the wrong end of a sharp and pointy object?

A letter from the woman being sued

[ylikone]

She sent this to someone at rabble.ca, which is were I copied and pasted it from:

------ Thanks so much! I have a pretty strong case of defence at my end including many letters of thanks from the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Labour. To want to sue me for $2,000,000 is just a way of "SLAPPing me." "SLAPP" stands for "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation". SLAPPs are legal actions (usually defamation actions) launched for the primary purpose of shutting down criticism, and without a strong cause of action. The plaintiff's goal in a SLAPP is not to win the lawsuit, but is rather to silence a critic by instilling fear of large legal costs and the spectre of large damage awards. Despite their right to free speech, critics may be frightened into silence e.g., taking down websites or comments made on line - if they are threatened with a defamation-based SLAPP. This method will not work with me. I've got way to much evidence at my end. I could actually counter sue for what I have been through so we'll see what happens. Either way, I'm glad it's out there in the media. Folks really need to know. With letters like yours it's great to know the message is getting out there. Thanks for your support! Louisette Lanteigne Waterloo Ont. -----

copy of letter by louisette (google cache)

[lkcl]

this is a _copy_ of a _copy_. the geocities site on which the copy
is hosted is overloaded. so i made a copy of the google cache, here:

http://hands.com/~lkcl/activa.holdings.report.by.l ouisette.lanteigne.html

At least this one is under Cdn Law

[redelm]

Well, well. Somebody's knickers got in a twist. And they decided to sue. Of course they can do that, but at their peril.

Cdn law is different from US law in a number of important instiutional details. The judge can and will award costs. Even if the company is technically correct, it could still wind up paying the defense costs. Automagically if the defendant pays a nominal sum "into court" and the award is less than this.

reputation?

[Takatsuki]

Activa claims the website has caused damage to its reputation and launched the lawsuit only after Lanteigne refused to apologize and take down the site.

suing housewives for millions of dollars to save the reputation... well if we have to, we have to.

photograph everything

[justins]

Let this be a lesson. In the days of cheap digital cameras, if you're going to take on a task like this woman did, you might as well photograph every last thing and notate when the pictures were taken, and under what circumstances.

If that became a common practice, it's easy to imagine the bigger engineering companies collaborating with our elected officials to create laws and ordinances against "photographing at a construction site" or some shit. Something unconstitutional but meant to up the ante a litle bit for anyone who wants to take this task on.

In the mean time, give 'em hell.

Re:photograph everything

[moosesocks]

Let this be a lesson. In the days of cheap digital cameras, if you're going to take on a task like this woman did, you might as well photograph every last thing and notate when the pictures were taken, and under what circumstances.

Parent is wrong. Taking pictures with a digital camera may hurt your case. There are courts in the US which consider digital photographs not to be valid evidence due to the ease of photographic manipulation through photoshop. I have no idea about canada, but I don't imagine it would be very different.

If you're going to photograph something to be used in court, you're probably better off using 35mm. Granted, digital is certainly ten times better than nothing, but unless you have film photographs and /or eyewitnesses, you might be SOL. But, again, the sheer volume of photographs on the site should be enough evidence for the courts.

That said, the parent poster has a very good point. Lots of pictures will definitely help your case.

Re:photograph everything

[Clovert Agent]

It'll happen, no question, and it will happen under the guise of national security. Photographing building sites==terrorist surveillance, you see - clearly you may be a terrorist who is looking for ways to sneak a bomb in, and photography must therefore be outlawed.

Even if you aren't a terrorist, the photos at your website may be used by one, so publication of, say, sketches or descriptions of the malpractice must also be outlawed.

With a bit of lobbying and some palm-greasing on the part of construction firms, can you seriously see that law /not/ passing? I can't.

Enjoy the rights while you've got 'em: you won't have them tomorrow.

Re:photograph everything

[justins]

If you're going to photograph something to be used in court, you're probably better off using 35mm. Granted, digital is certainly ten times better than nothing, but unless you have film photographs and /or eyewitnesses, you might be SOL. But, again, the sheer volume of photographs on the site should be enough evidence for the courts.

I don't disagree, I just think a useful volume of photographic evidence is a lot easier to achieve if you don't have to buy all that film. Digital photos can go up on the web nice and quick, too, which is useful if you're making a site meant to sway public opinion.

There are courts in the US which consider digital photographs not to be valid evidence due to the ease of photographic manipulation through photoshop.

That sounds like more of an issue for a criminal case, right? Anyhow, links to more info on the topic would be appreciated, it's kind of an interesting one. Thanks.

Simple really

[riversky]

If she is telling the truth she has NO problems, if she is lying then she SHOULD be sued. The law is a TOOL in business. If their aim is to bankrupt her that is one thing but she should win if she has written something accurate.

Re:Simple really

[GameMaster]

Yes, and according to Canadian law (so says the article), win or loose, she has to shoulder all of her own legal costs. So, unless she happens to be wealthy, she will end up with monumental debt and/or really poor quality legal defense. What does it matter if she wins or looses if she ends up living in the gutter when it's all over either way? The moral victory of winning means nothing when you're still hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt from defending yourself in the trial and any other appeals the company may try. I fail to see much of a difference between that and simply agreeing to pay the $2 million in the first place, unless she happens to have a massive yearly income.

This is one of many reasons why treating corporations as "people" under the law (a.k.a. corporate person-hood) is a stupendously bad idea. Anti-SLAPP laws seem to do some things to mitigate this but Canada doesn't seem to have this kind of thing and even in places that have it the corporations are sometimes allowed to use the same laws against individuals when they libel them. Corporations aren't people. They are large, abstract, organizations driven solely by profit motive in which group mentality (much like the mentality that takes over in riots) is used to override the morals of the individual employees. Pair this with the sheer disparity of resources (both intellectual and fiscal) of a corporation versus the average person and you have a situation where the two parties are almost guaranteed to enter any legal battle with the corporation at a massive advantage.

I can't speak for Canada, but I was always taught that the U.S. was supposed to be all about the rights of the individual. Of course, it was our supreme court that started this ball rolling by declaring corporate person-hood in the first place (Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 1886)...

-GameMaster

Re:Simple really

[Legion303]

"If the woman in the story wrote things that were demonstrably untrue, and if reasonable people can be persuaded that she wrote these things to intentionally harm the plaintiff's reputation, then she may well be in for a great deal of trouble and expense, and still might lose."

It's not that simple. If she wrote something along the lines of "I saw construction workers dumping gasoline on the ground," she might have a hard time defending herself against a libel charge unless she happened to get documentary evidence or has witnesses.

I lost in court last year defending myself against a traffic ticket for "failure to yield," simply because I had no witnesses to testify that the lady who hit me had, in fact, run a red light. The cop who cited me lied on the stand, refuting my account of how the light at that intersection behaved (long story short, he said *none* of the lights in the city he had worked in for 11 years behaved the way I described, although it was fairly well-known that they did, and I took a picture of that intersection doing what he said it couldn't do the very next day). If you have no witnesses or documentation, the truth won't necessarily help you.

Well, at least she doesn't have to worry too much

[stygar]

It's not much consolation, but Canadian courts almost never award punitive damages. Even if the developer wins, the court is likely to simply try and work out a value for whatever damage to the complainant's reputation that the statements resulted in.

Details on Activa Holdings

[bigberk]

This is all happening in my city... here is some contact information which is publicly available CHBA, the Canadian Home Builders' Association

Activa Holdings Inc.
(519) 886-9400 Ext.104

Other contact information for the company interesting enough located a couple km away from RIM

Activa Holdings Inc.
Peter Armbruster
735 Bridge St. W
Waterloo, ON
N2V 2H1
(519) 886-9400
www.activagroup.ca

The web site appears to be inactive. The WHOIS contact is Werner Brummund, kyantz@gto.net and fax number is 5198868955

It would also be interesting to know which firms invest in Activa Holdings, as I'm sure investors would like to know how their capital is being used to bully residents in Kitchener/Waterloo Ontario.

Corporate Responsibility

[zokrath]

Currently, corporations are blessed with many of the benefits of citizenship, and few of the limitations.

What we need are reforms to greatly limit the impact that corpotations can have on individual citizens.

To start, a corporation suing an individual citizen must cover that citizens legal fees, up to a certain percentage of their own legal cost, for instance 25%.
The money will be paid up front on a monthly basis, and does not need to be returned under any circumstances.
Any taxes for the legal fee reimbursement will be paid by the corporation, such that the citizen recieves, after all applicable taxes, the required amount.
The legal fee reimbursement will not be considered income for purposes of welfare, disability, unemployment, etc, and can be used for any purpose with no limitations.

Obviously the first things corporations will do is claim that their legal costs are next to nothing, because all of their lawyers are on retainer, and thus 'free'
Good job at finding the loophole, Mr. Suit, that simply means that the assumed legal cost will be the monthly salary of each lawyer who touches the case, times the number of years that the case. Alternate compensation would also need to be considered, including stock options, company cars and houses, so forth and so on.

Under current market and legal conditions, often it is such that citizens have little to no recourse when corporations violate laws in a way harmful to said citizens.
And yet, the same corporations that are effectively immune to citizen retaliation can effortlessly bankrupt numerous citizens via legal entanglements.

Corporations should not be able to force citizens into disfavorable settlements that entail large fines and the sacrifice of the citizens rights and future liability by threatening a never-ending legal battle that will cost the citizen large amounts of money even to enlist a single lawyer for the duration of their defense.

Corporations may exist solely to turn a profit for the shareholders, but they are allowed to exist solely to benefit the economy and thus the country. Suing private citizens rarely has any kind of benefit beyond establishing corporate dominance over the citizen, which is certainly bad for the country, as the country is, in fact, said citizen.

Of course, I am in no way qualified for legal or economic analysis, so obviously all of this will no doubt cause an economic recession as the rights of the pitiful corporations are simply trampled upon by an uncaring, unfeeling mass of citizens, who the corporations have no means of stopping. Which would be rather similar to the current situation, except with the trampling being the other way around.

"Fair" is a relative term

[Chemical Serenity]

It really depends on which side of the alleged libel you're standing on.

In this case, the compelling story is that a mother-of-three is doing this to protect her children against a faceless, insensitive and obnoxious corporation. It plays to our desires to root for the underdog. We can all see ourselves in that situation: a lone voice in the wilderness crying out for solace.

In this case, our libel laws are not very forgiving. The burden of proof is set pretty high. Not impossibly so, but perhaps more difficult than an individual could accomodate without becoming some sort of crucading private investigator.

Now, let's take another scenario. An unrelated, fictional woman has an axe to grind over a local construction company based on some imagined slight (say, she thinks they go to work too early in the morning and mess up her sleep). She then engages in a campaign of deliberate misinformation using plausable but falsified events. In this case, the libel laws are quite GOOD, because it puts the burden of proof on the potential libeler to back up their words with proof, and god only knows what kind of damage could be done by one disgruntled and motivated nutcase.

Personally, I think that libel laws SHOULD put the burden on the person making the statements, but there should be increased protection of the little guy 'whistleblower' from being intimidated away from speaking out in protest when its due. An anti-SLAPP style law would go a long way to resolve that weakness.

Either way, it's premature to judge Canada's (really, british common law's) approach as 'inferior' because of one anecdote where the law isn't supportive of the little guy over big business. After all, the same protection extends to the woman in the event this company tried to railroad HER.

Re:"Fair" is a relative term

[hunterx11]

It isn't about the big guy versus the little guy; it's about whether the burden of proof should lie with the plaintiff or the defendant, regardless of the circumstances.

Re:"Fair" is a relative term

[ocelotbob]

So, basically, one should be guilty until proven innocent in libel. Why not murder too? Surely if the cops arrest you, surely you did something, non?

Re:"Fair" is a relative term

[ratboy666]

Libel is NOT Murder.

Lets start with that.

With Libel, you *have* made a statement. The statement is a matter of public record. That FACT is not in question.

With Murder, the FACT of the Murder is in question.

With Libel, the determination of Libel is whether the statement that has been made is True. If the statement is False Libel may have occured. If the statement is True, Libel DID NOT OCCUR.

Now, with Murder, Murder must be proven. With Libel, the truth of a statement must be proven. Since a falsehood cannot be proven, the burden must fall on the plaintiff.

Simple logic.

Ratboy.

Re:Stop Whning: Free Speech is a part of Life

[reallocate]

Nice parrot. Any other tricks you do? Or haven't you moved beyond that in the thrid grade?

This isn't a free speech issue. Nothing has happened that has limited this person's freedom to speak or write what she pleases. Free speech does not include the right to slander or libel. You have a right to say what you wish, and I have an equal right to sue you if I believe you've slandered or libeled me. One right has nothing to do with the other.

Corporations ARE stupid

[jonr]

With the laywer(s) salary, the company could probably hire a cleanup crew for a week and really put a positive spin on this story.
"Look, we REALLY care about the environment". "We listen to people"... but noooo, let's release the hounds, show that we are just faceless corportaion that doesn't give a shit about anything but the bottom line. And our laywers have to look busy, or they will lose their $160.000 jobs and company cars...