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."

Her site is already slashdotted

[davecb]

http://ca.geocities.com/[e-mail] [geocities.com] returns "Sorry, this site is temporarily unavailable! The web site you are trying to access has exceeded its allocated data transfer."

--davecb

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) [64.233.161.104], nor does it mention the company's name, Activa Holdings Inc.

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).

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. [iii.org] 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.

A classic example of...

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

A SLAPP [wikipedia.org] suit. They are illegal in the US.

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.

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 [guardian.co.uk]). 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:I thought...

[TheSkyIsPurple]

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

Her webpage is here:

[Anonymous Coward]

Her Webpage [72.14.207.104]

Since she's on geocities and this trounced her bandwidth, I linked the Google cache. Cheers.

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.

Found the site!

[slappyjack]

This is supposedly the URL:
http://ca.geocities.com/[e-mail] [geocities.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 [rabble.ca]

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

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: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.

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...

[Senjutsu]

From here [crimes-of-persuasion.com], rather.

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 [72.14.203.104]

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 [72.14.203.104]

ttyl
          Farrell

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 [72.14.203.104]

Google's cache of her geocities page!

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 [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]

why not say hello to the weasel lawyers?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.sorbaralaw.com/Contact_Us/contact_us.ht ml [sorbaralaw.com]
maybe mention that they just got their clients north american coverage for their mis-deeds! that wasn't very smal.. uh?

Re:Not if it will hurt their bottom line to fix it

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you can. It happens a lot. Google search for "sues canadian government" [google.com].

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.

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.

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 [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]

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

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

[e-mail]

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?

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:I thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

Reply to this comment so its nearer to the top:

Local HBA:Waterloo Region
Company:Activa Holdings Inc.
Phone:[phone] Ext.104
Categories:Home Builder

Taken from
http://www.chba.ca/FindMembers/details.php?Company =Activa+Holdings+Inc.&HBA=Waterloo+Region [www.chba.ca] (canadian home builders association).

Re:I thought...

[MillionthMonkey]

From the source anyone can edit: [wikipedia.org]

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...

[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.)

... 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 [google.com]

Re:She has a lot to lose

[Lifewish]

I read her site (google cache link [72.14.203.104]) 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.

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: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 [wikipedia.org]

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. -----

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.

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 [hands.com]

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.

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.
[phone] 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
[phone]
www.activagroup.ca

The web site appears to be inactive. The WHOIS contact is Werner Brummund, [e-mail] 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.

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: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."

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.

"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: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.