Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Canada Censorship Your Rights Online

Negative Online Reviews Are Not Defamation (At Least In Canada) 62

Posted by timothy from the in-canada-at-least dept.
An anonymous reader writes A client who was dissatisfied with the service of an immigration company in Canada took her grievances online, upon which she was sued for defamation and libel by the owner of the company. A Canadian superior court has tossed out the lawsuit with the note: "One may be dissatisfied with the quality or efficiency of services but expressing one's dissatisfaction is not equivalent to defamation." The court noted: "This demand is grossly exaggerated. It flirts with frivolity and abuse within the meaning given to these words in Article 54.1 C.C.P."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Negative Online Reviews Are Not Defamation (At Least In Canada) More

Negative Online Reviews Are Not Defamation (At Least In Canada)

Comments Filter:

  • Common Sense Prevails (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ronin Developer ( 67677 ) on Thursday December 04, 2014 @11:54AM (#48523521)

    Now, let's bring that logic here to the US.

    • Re:Common Sense Prevails (Score:5, Funny)

      by Trepidity ( 597 ) <delirium-slashdotNO@SPAMhackish.org> on Thursday December 04, 2014 @12:01PM (#48523591)

      I hope the test case is Dice suing someone over a "Slashdot Beta Sucks!" comment.

    • You mean to the rest of the world, right?

    • Common sense would be if the judge dispensed with the "flirts with" qualification and declared the demand to be "frivolity and abuse," and then awarded attorney fees and court costs to the defendant.

      More importantly, the judgement failed to uphold the negative view as non-defamatory, but rather ruled against the plaintiff because the entity being defamed was a separate legal entity (the corporation owning the website, not the plaintiff personally). In fact, the judge ruled that:

      [32] Surely, the Defe

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Tyger ( 126248 )

        The frivolity and abuse was statement was only about the size of the monetary damages, not about the claim that it was defamation. So even removing the "flirts with" qualifier, it's still not a good overall ruling. The summary of this post completely misstates the ruling, which was primarily dismissed because the alleged defamation was not against the plaintiff, but was against the company he represents, and so the suit was brought by the wrong entity.

        • Really. Not being sarcastic.

          I'm not so familiar with QC law but generally in Canada, damages have to be proven, real, and accurate. To get $100K in damages the plaintiff would have to show the loss and not just pull a number out of the air. Further, punitive damages are reserved, AFAIK, for situations that truly deserve punishment.

          This is the "common sense" aspect of the case. The judge looked at the facts and quickly determined that there ain't no way to show any loss let alone $100K. There

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by suutar ( 1860506 )

        While I also dislike the dimissal of the doctrine of accuracy as a defense, this is Canada, and as far as I know this is an area they share with the UK - accuracy doesn't make it non-defamatory

    • Now, let's bring that logic here to the US.

      I've given a couple of bad reviews on places on Google but I think it really says something about the state of affairs here in the U.S. when I feel terrified that I'm going to get a summons every time I post a bad review.

      • What is the positive motivation you have that is of greater amplitude than your feeling of terror that results from posting a bad review?

    • ...but where's the profit in that?

      It's like you expect the schools to larn thuse kids sumfin and then expect the graduates to actually think logically for themselves. If we did that -- THEN where would we be?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You mean the logic that is and has been in the US for years? Do a simple search for Roca Labs and how they're being absolutely excoriated in the courts for trying to drag up a defamation suit against negative reviewers, and that's even with a contract involved.

      But hey, let's not get the facts involved in the weekly Slashdot anti-US circle-jerk. There are plenty of things to dislike about the country, having rich safeguards against baseless defamation suits is not one of them.

  • Because, as tennis player John McEnroe once informed a hecker, "I'm doing you a favor just by talking to you."

  • Blame Canada! Blame Canada (Score:3, Funny)

    by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) on Thursday December 04, 2014 @12:10PM (#48523677)
    (...am I doing the online negative review right?)

  • What it should take to sue successfully (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    If someone wants to win a suit over a negative review, they should have to prove that the review is false. For instance, they would have to prove that the customer was not dissatisfied with the service, or that some other statement that the client made in their review was false in a defamatory way. I think that a statement such as "this company is the worst ever" should not be expected to be literally true, but be taken as a statement of dissatisfaction on the part of the customer.

    • If someone wants to win a suit over a negative review, they should have to prove that the review is false. For instance, they would have to prove that the customer was not dissatisfied with the service, or that some other statement that the client made in their review was false in a defamatory way. I think that a statement such as "this company is the worst ever" should not be expected to be literally true, but be taken as a statement of dissatisfaction on the part of the customer.

      I think if this were to happen, yelp would be out of business, since according to some anecdotes, they post fake negative reviews to (effectively) blackmail you into buying their advertising services, which includes (1) not placing competitors ads on the pages they create for your business, without your permission, and (2) allow you to chose reviews seen by default by users who do not click through to additional reviews (thus allowing you to effectively "hide" negative reviews that they themselves might hav

  • IANAL but that doesn't seem to be what it says (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tyger ( 126248 ) on Thursday December 04, 2014 @12:24PM (#48523767)

    The main cause for dismissal of this wasn't that online reviews are not defamation. It was because the lawsuit was brought by the wrong entity (the lawyer who represents the website, rather than the corporation who owns the website) and that he failed to provide substantive proof of any monetary loss.

    If it were brought by the right entity and there was proof of loss, it may not have gone the same way. The judge specifically said that the review did have defamatory language in it.

    • ...it may not have gone the same way. The judge specifically said that the review did have defamatory language in it.

      That last bit is the key part to any defamation case. Online, Offline, losses no losses, if you go online and post facts on a review site (food was cold, service was slow etc) it doesn't matter how bad the losses to the business was it's not defamation.

      Now if the review was misleading or intentionally false then that's a different story.

      • Defamation law is substantially different in Canada compared to other common-law countries, especially the USA.

        In Canada there is a substantial onus on the defendant to either justify the defamatory remarks (factual truth, fair comment, responsible reporting, etc...) or challenge the defamatory nature of the statement. Probable truth is not sufficient to justify defamation. This contrasts sharply with other common law jurisdictions that place the onus on the plaintiff to prove that the defamatory statement

  • Not just Canada (Score:3)

    by wisnoskij ( 1206448 ) on Thursday December 04, 2014 @12:24PM (#48523773) Homepage
    You have even more freedom of speech in the US, so I am very certain that you would be more than covered there. Really, the only country in the entire world I could see a legitimate review labeled as defamation is the UK. Where the wording of their lawsin my oppinion , would make all negative review technically defamation.

    • In the USofA, it is very easy for a corporation (you know, our overlords) to file a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). They have been used, for example, to punish those who "outed" falsely-labeled "organic" produce and protect at least one slaughterhouse from charges of animal cruelty (a bit wierd, but think of the difference between the "humane" killing methods of kosher and Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle") and poor sanitation.

      • How did they win their case if they actually falsely labeled the product?

        • Re:SLAPP in USofA (Score:4, Insightful)

          by dltaylor ( 7510 ) on Thursday December 04, 2014 @01:59PM (#48524701)

          They don't have to "win". The legal fees will break most individuals in a contest against a corporation.

          • I could go into more details as to what your options are but at the end of the day it won't be free. If you can't afford a lawyer to start with you will have to obtain legal aid. Otherwise you will have to work with a lawyer that is willing to fight a case against a corporation (there are plenty of lawyers that will take on a case and expect a marginal amount of money during the legal process and expect full payout later on).

            Even if the rules state that each party must pay his legal cost there is in many ca

  • The title is a bit misleading - it *should* read "(At Least In Québec)".

    This case was a civil matter heard in the Québec Superior Court, and some of the statues cited were from the Québec Code of Civil Procedure. The legislative framework of Québec is derived from French civil law, whereas the English-speaking provinces derive from English common law. A Québec precedent on a civil matter won't have weight in other provinces, so extrapolating a Québec decision to the whole of Ca

    • The rest of Canada follows common law, which has the same basic rules. Even true statements can be defamatory. [wikipedia.org]

      Broadly, Canadians can be held liable by English-Canadian courts for comments on public affairs, about public figures, which are factually true, and which are broadly believed. They cannot be held liable for opinion, inference, hyperlinking without explicit agreement with the content, reportage when this is based on honest research and journalistic ethics. Plaintiffs need not prove falsity, malice or damages. Politicians can, and do,[4] sue including during elections for political advantage [5] or to silence critics or accusers. Evidence can be gathered by spies representing themselves falsely in private conversations. Defendants, once accused, are prima facie liable until they prove themselves innocent (reverse onus). Anonymous persons can be exposed for political comment, even if they are vulnerable and reside in jurisdictions where retribution is likely.[6] People may be sued from remote jurisdictions if publication can be proven in that remote jurisdiction, which can mean as few as one person seeing the words.

      • That's one of the stupider laws I've heard of. The truth should be a perfectly valid defense against defamation and libel. Obviously a law written for our overlords.
        • However, it's the standard in most of the common law countries. And it makes sense if you think about it. In the example I make elsewhere, what about someone who maliciously "outs" a co-worker to get them fired? Intent counts.
          • Yes intent counts, but how can you prove intent? I think that as long as they don't have a direct financial benefit, then the truth is OK.

  • Whaaa? Where Does TFA Say That? (Score:3)

    by Anna Merikin ( 529843 ) on Thursday December 04, 2014 @01:10PM (#48524251) Journal

    As I read the judge's ruling, he throws out the case because no evidence of damage was shown, because the lawyer himself was not defamed (the website, a corporation the lawyer worked for, was), and that except for the use of the word "cheated" there was no tort (right of lien). IANAL but I find it hard not to see that the judge might well have ruled the other way had the plaintiff been the website corporation.

    Where is the expansion of the right to publish bad reviews here? I don't see it.

  • Pfft! More like had them in the back seat for the whole night, knocked them up, and later they had triplets...

    The low regard for free speech is a real shame.

  • Before everyone gets their panties in a knot I though I would paste a link to the definition of defamation since a few of the comments suggested many don't know the actual definition.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]

  • Well, at least in Canada, that is.

    • Well, at least in Canada, that is.

      Fool! There's an election coming next year. Don't give Harper any ideas!!!

      DISCLAMER
      The above use of the word "Fool" is not intended to reflect on the parent poster, but on the sorry state of Canadian politics, and is clearly meant in jest, so it is not defamatory in Canada.
      The above reference to Stephen Harper is not to imply that Mr. Harper lacks any ideas. Unfortunately ...

  • I agree (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I agree that the important point when reading this is that there is a difference between expressing dissatisfaction with a service or product and defamation or slander.

    The main points to consider are the intent of the person expressing the negative opinion and whether what they are saying is true, and if not, if they know that what they are saying about the product, person or service (read "Brand") is not true. If I decide I hate my former boss and start publishing a bunch of things about him that are not

Slashdot Top Deals

A Fortran compiler is the hobgoblin of little minis.

Close