Mom Makes Website, Gets Sued for $2 Million 842
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."
heh (Score:5, Interesting)
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!"
I agree... (Score:2, Interesting)
Another libel case? (Score:1, Interesting)
Who are "Activa Holdings Inc", and do they have any reputation to lose?
Is the big company a bully? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
--dave (who went to university in KW) c-b
Eh (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Freedom can only be complete (Score:1, Interesting)
So who is responsible if you yell 'fire' in your theater and two children are trampled to death in the ensuing chaos?
Here's her site (Score:4, Interesting)
She has a lot to lose (Score:5, Interesting)
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:This is all good (Score:1, Interesting)
On the other hand, if she doesn't have a case and her claims are baseless, she's doing damage to a posssibly innocent party and no lawyer will touch it. If no lawyer will touch her case, it's a sign that she's full of shit. Or at least, she's spouting things without anything to back it up - which is just as bad. It's one thing to go around claiming, say, "Microsoft is teh evil!" as a rather generic sentiment. It's another to go around saying "Microsoft is releasing toxins into the local water supply from their software packaging and is killing thousands of babies as a result". If you're saying one, it's opinion. If you're saying the other, you should have some sort of evidence to back it up. If you have evidence to back it up, you'll get support and legal help by throngs of hungry lawyers. If you don't... they'll laugh at you and you'll be stuck paying the bill for your thoughtless and wild comments.
In the end, she'll get what she deserves. Since the article is "People Magazine!" light on details, we can't really know.
Hooray for loser-pays (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Alarmist (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
just planned a "save the earth" site :( (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Counter sue on financial grounds (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Do did anyone _really_ RTFA? (Score:1, Interesting)
I am OK with that. It's a noble goal to protect the aquifer (if that's what the real goal is). But, let's tell the story correctly. And... before we start donating to this woman through paypal, the group that she's part of needs to pony up a little money to take care of their own political/environmental problems. After that, and when they are truthful about their goals, paypal away. Until then... lady, if you intentionally poke the bear... you can't blame anyone else if you lose a hand (even the bear).
Trial by Combat (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Haven't we been over this already? (Score:1, Interesting)
Sort of. Money is an easy way of keeping track of value. Saying "Money is all that matters" is equivelent to saying "doing good things for other people and expecting them to do the same back to you is all that matters".
2) If you are not a millionaire, you are a second class citizen
What? I suppose that this makes sense in the context that most millionaires are self-made and tend to work a lot harder than the rest of use... and therefore seem to have more influence than the average person.
3) You are not allowed to buy from a small company if there is a bigger one available
It is not like Walmart somehow forces people to buy stuff from them - they just sell it cheaper. That is code for: they are more efficient than the competition. If you believe in supporting small stores to the detriment of your pocketbook, you are free to patronize them.
4) If something a company sells you is crap, well, too bad.
No shit! If anyone sells/trades/gives you crap - not just companies - and you accept it then "too bad". Things have been this way since Abraham "forgot" to tell the Pharoh that Sarah was currently his wife.
5) If you buy something from a company, they own you
Where do you come up with this stuff? They own the money that you gave them in exchange for the good that they gave you. The only reason you traded is because you value the good more than the money (which is really a symbolic representation of value, anyhow).
6) Speaking against anyone or anything richer than you is illegal.
Abusing libel and slander laws is deplorable, but certainly not limited to compaines.
7) It is the government of the companies, by the companies, for the companies.
While it is true that compaines influence the government, that is largely because private citizens are too lazy to exert any influence at all. How many people here can honestly say that they write to their congress(wo)man at least 5 times a year? I am talking about a paper letter, not one of those EFF click-through campaigns. There is a reason why the AARP is so powerful - old people tend to be willing to write a ton of letters.
8) Anyone who doesn't go to the Commerce School deserves to be screwed over
If you want to be a good painter, go to school to be a painter. If you want to be a good swimmer, go to school to be a swimmer. If you want to be a good trader/buyer/seller go to school to be that. Seriously, if people just took the time to read a bit about the subject, most of this would be common sense.
Re:I thought... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
At least this one is under Cdn Law (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:@#!% Corprate Control (Score:1, Interesting)
Which is more dangerous, pressure-treated wood* or a know-it-all control freak that wants to clamp-down on every child in the neighborhood?
* Containing "dangerous" amounts of arsenic, according to this loon.
photograph everything (Score:5, Interesting)
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:I thought... (Score:3, Interesting)
(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... (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
The right public perception... (Score:1, Interesting)
"Ultimately, they're confident it will be resolved in their favour," Murdoch said. "They're confident the right public perception will come about."
The right public perception, or the one they want?
The right public perception is coming out, and it sure isn't what they want.
Re:photograph everything (Score:3, Interesting)
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
That said, the parent poster has a very good point. Lots of pictures will definitely help your case.
Re:I thought... (Score:3, Interesting)
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 [wikipedia.org]. 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 [wikipedia.org]. The only big difference is that, in a US state, there'd be the option of having this heard before a civil jury.
Canadian Libel Laws Favour The Rich (Score:1, Interesting)
This is one area where the laws in Canada suck badly compared to the USA and other countries. SLAPPs are much easier to initiate here in Canada in order to protect the rich - as well the courts are totally set up to protect the rich when it comes to basic justice issues - like "freedom of speech".
Took forever for the courts in Canada to decide that a woman was a person - because the rich didn't want any woman to be a judge, politician or to hold any kind of official government office!
So it is easy to end up behind the 8 ball. So one has to proceed with caution and video tape everything in situations similar to the one described here. However, any corporation can easily force anyone into the courts - and force bankruptcy by extended legal battles. An easy way to clean anyone out financially in court is the use of so-called expert witnesses. These "experts" do not have to produce scientific documented evident to back up any claim - they simply have to make a statement - and judges accept that as fact. Naturally the rich can bring in as many puppets (experts) as they wish - since the defendant will have to pay for them later!
Corporations ARE stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
"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...
Re:Simple really (Score:1, Interesting)
In the U.S., her case would be swept up pretty quickly, especially with this kind of media coverage. I don't pretend to know how it is in the other legal systems. Hopefully someone can speak on that.