Slashdot Mirror
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 $2 million."
"The truth" was a solid defense against libel claims?
But she has to prove it, and they've got the bigger pocket books...
In the U.S. this is a no brainer, but this crap happens in canada too? I thought they were ALL enviro-hippies there.
Fascism is the greatest political ideology ever conceived. Sorry.
Bad: Woman rights remarks about your company.
Worse: Sue said woman for more than she can ever possibly make under normal circumstances, breaking her family apart and probably separating her three kids.
They could have made it 'better' by being like "We're glad you brought this to our attention and we're going to fix it. Thanks for your vigilence!"
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
I'm so glad I live in Canada, we don't have to deal with this bullsh.. uh, wait.. what the.. oh crap.
Nobody's gay for Mole-Man.
The summary does not state the womans name, Louisette Lanteigne, nor does it link to her website (it's geocities, so this is a google Cache), nor does it mention the company's name, Activa Holdings Inc.
http://brandonbloom.name
If there were just misunderstanding (wrongfully interperted information), then company would have invated this lady, described problems and how they will solve that and then all problems with bad PR would go away. Of course, if they choose this course, they have something to hide - because it is typical defence nowadays - attack.
Of course, a little bit more details about which claims company thinks are false would be helpful for more concrete judgement.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
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).
...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.
s'wut i sed.
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.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
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.
...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.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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.
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.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
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?)
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.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
... MILS ... Mothers I'd Like to Sue ...
The Luddites were ahead of their time.
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.
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
even preaching the murder of another.
Drop dead.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
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.
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.
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?
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
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.
I'm not surprised that the builder is trying to screw over the lady, while making a huge mess of their construction site.
... Adera ... is the same kind of company.
... again all from an AWARD WINNING building company! No wonder there's so many leaky condos in this city.
... even though they will simply shut down, start up under a new name, and carry on with their crap.
The 'Award Winning' company that built my townhouse in Burnaby BC
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
I wish the lady luck, take down those bastards
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
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 ....
....
.... so not we are re-thinking our strategy ...
........ but now we are really reconsidering ....
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
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
Would YOU have the balls?
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.
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
------ 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. -----
Meh.
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.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga