The law of Defamation

The law of Defamation. Criminal Code R.S.C, 1985, c. C-46: 298(1).

According to Criminal Code R.S.C, 1985, c. C-46: 298(1).

Explanation. Defamation refers to providing false written or oral statements regarding a person to a third party with the aim of harming that person’s reputation and goodwill..

Critical Analysis. Defamation refers to harming the reputation of a person by making false statements about the person. The law of defamation ensures that people don’t use their Right to speech in a negative manner. This is a very important law, as it ensures that people who tries to harm other person’s reputation with malicious intentions gets punished..

LIBEL & SLANDER. These are the two important aspects of defamation law: Libel: It includes permanent written records of defamatory words, pictures, videos. Slander: It includes words or actions which don't have a permanent record. Like spoken words or hand gestures..

Defenses against Defamation. True Statement: If a statement is true it wont qualify under defamation. Fair comment: The statement made was for public interest and did not have a malicious opinion. Absolute or Qualified Privilege: The statement made in a venue whether people have absolute privilege to speak freely or statement made with good intentions can be excused. Public matters: Responsible communication on the matters of important for public welfare..

Tran v. Financial Debt Recovery Ltd., 2000. Interesting Fact: The case was fought by the plaintiff by himself without any legal counsel..

The case of defamation. IVSTITIA. Ontario supreme court of Justice Molly J. Plaintiff: Mark Tran, appearing on behalf of himself Defendant: Financial Debt Recovery Ltd. Heard: 10/23/2000 Judgment Rendered: 11/10/2000.

Background. Mr. Tran graduated from college in 1996. He landed a contract job immedietly after completing his studies and started paying back his student loan. However once contract was over he was unemployed from 8 months and was not able to make the payments. In September, 1997 he obtained a job as financial analyst and requested bank to resume his payments but the bank informed that now his loan is with the government and he has to deal directly with the government. Mr. Tran sent numerous emails to enquire about the pending amount of his loan to the government but he never got any reply..

Continuation…. In May 1999, Mr. Tran received a phone call from Mr. Spina who especially mentioned that he is with the Management board of Ontario Government. Mr. Tran disputed about the amount demanded by Mr. Spina and asked for a detailed basis for the claim. After long discussions and resistance by MR. Spina he finally sent a demand draft of $13,195.51 written on the letterhead of defendants. After receiving the letter, plaintiff got to know that he was dealing with Financial Debt Recovery and not with the Government of Ontario. Plaintiff responded to the defendants by stating that he will only deal with government to pay back the loan and not with them..

Harassment. Since then, Plaintiff started receiving harassing calls from the employees of defendants at work. These calls were made to plaintiff's colleagues and employer as well. The calls includes verbal abuse, name calling, rude tone etc. After that plantiff decided to start a court action..

Statement of Claim. Issued on April, 17 2000 prepared by Mr. Tran himself. Mentions number of allegations and wrongdoings conducted by employees of defendants. Includes: Harassing Mr. Tran and his colleagues, calling insulting names in front of others, calling his employer and making false statements, threatening Mr. Tran that “they will deal with him personally”.

Statement of Defense. On May 17, 2000 the defendant’s solicitor delivered a statement of defense denying every aspect of claims and mentioned these sets of events never occurred. Defense pleaded that statement of claim doesn’t does not disclose a cause of action and there’s no reason for going to trial. It claimed costs on solicitor-client basis..

Facts of the trial. Plaintiff. Mr. Tran only called two witnesses during the trial, himself and Ms. Anne Marshall, the president of James P. Marshall Inc. (Mr. Tran’s employer) According to the judge, Mr. Trans evidence confirmed with the allegations made by him. Ms. Marshalls testified about the calls made by the employees of defendant and on cross examination she was unshaken..

Factual findings of the case. Plaintiffs' colleagues received various insulting calls from the defendants employees. Mr. Papatetrou , one of the employee called Mr. Tran and claimed he is a lawyer with Ontario government. He also called Ms. Marshalls and made false allegations regarding the plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered loss of pay raise and bonus, which he would have received otherwise, if it was not for the harassing calls. The harassing telephone calls were a continuous torture not only for plaintiff but also for his colleagues..

Causes of Actions. Defamation Intentional infliction of emotional harm Interference with economic interests Threatening bodily harm Invasion of privacy..

Judgment. According to the judge: The evidences gathered in trial are enough to establish all the requisite elements of tort of defamation. The evidences also establishes that defendant has committed tort of intentional interference. It was found that defendant interfered with Mr. Tran’s work by illegal means. There was a deliberate attempt by defendant to cause emotional suffering to the plaintiff. The facts of the case are enough to warrant damages for the tort of invasion of privacy. However, it would be unnecessary to deal whether the threats of bodily harm constitutes the tort of assault..

Damages & Cost. An amount of $25000 was granted in plaintiff's favor as damages. Costs awarded to plaintiff: $840.00.

Work Cited. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-298.html https://www.cjfe.org/defamation_libel_and_slander_what_are_my_rights_to_free_expression#:~:text=Defamation%20refers%20to%20harming%20another,reputations%20have%20been%20wrongly%20damaged . https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2000/2000canlii22621/2000canlii22621.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAKZGVmYW1hdGlvbgAAAAAB&resultIndex=25 https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/defamation.

Thank you.