jg24 3707 Report post Posted February 25, 2010 My earlier post I was not condoning what Mark did I just found it odd she would come to the boards where she didnt want her name If Mark took it to far then he got what deserved Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest W***ledi*Time Report post Posted February 25, 2010 ... The issue regarding demonstrating damages is a little convoluted ... Damage does not have to be shown. Your carters.ca document quotes Section 16 of the Act, exactly as it is quoted earlier in this thread, and glosses it: "As such, by virtue of the fact that the [defamatory] statements were made, the proposed plaintiff can make out a case without having to suffer from a reverse burden of proving the damages that they suffered." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thompo69 198 Report post Posted February 25, 2010 Damage does not have to be shown. Your carters.ca document quotes Section 16 of the Act, exactly as it is quoted earlier in this thread, and glosses it: "As such, by virtue of the fact that the [defamatory] statements were made, the proposed plaintiff can make out a case without having to suffer from a reverse burden of proving the damages that they suffered." Yes, in certain enumerated situations of slander. Reading further: "All other oral statements made that do not fall in the above four categories require the proposed plaintiff to prove that they sustained a loss." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest W***ledi*Time Report post Posted February 25, 2010 Yes, in certain enumerated situations of slander. Reading further: "All other oral statements made that do not fall in the above four categories require the proposed plaintiff to prove that they sustained a loss." But surely this case is "Slander affecting official, professional or business reputation". The defamatory statement was posted on an Escort Review Board about an Escort, after all. Otherwise, this whole thread is irrelevant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thompo69 198 Report post Posted February 26, 2010 But surely this case is "Slander affecting official, professional or business reputation". The defamatory statement was posted on an Escort Review Board about an Escort, after all. Otherwise, this whole thread is irrelevant. I agree with you. My point is that in the broader question of damages in defamation actions, it is a little more complicated than "you don't have to show damages." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thompo69 198 Report post Posted February 27, 2010 But surely this case is "Slander affecting official, professional or business reputation". The defamatory statement was posted on an Escort Review Board about an Escort, after all. Otherwise, this whole thread is irrelevant. Actually, having just reviewed the OP again it seems that this is a case of libel and not slander. As such, s.16 does not apply. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest W***ledi*Time Report post Posted February 27, 2010 Actually, having just reviewed the OP again it seems that this is a case of libel and not slander ... Hmmm. The OP states all of: libel, defamation, and slander. But if it's not slander, then it's libel, and damages do not have to be proven for a finding of libel, either. The only thing that has to be shown is defamation. According to the Ontario Act: What constitutes libel 2. Defamatory words in a newspaper or in a broadcast shall be deemed to be published and to constitute libel. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12, s. 2. http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-l12/latest/rso-1990-c-l12.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
