3,009
edits
Changes
no edit summary
{{Dial-A-Law TOC|expanded = rights}}
===The law doesn't protect you from of defamation protects a personal insult or person’s reputation=== A good reputation is core to a remark that injures only your prideperson’s sense of self-worth and dignity. It protects reputationOnce harmed, not feelings. So if someone calls you a lazy slobgood reputation is hard to regain, you might be hurtwith sometimes devastating consequences, but you would not have especially professionally. The law of '''defamation''' protects a defamation complaint unless the statement was made to another personperson’s reputation from harm that is unjustified.
==What is libel?=If someone defames you===Libel is the type of defamation with a permanent record, like social media and other online posts, newspapers, letters, emails, picturesIf someone defames you, and radio and TV broadcastsyou can sue them for money (called '''damages''') for harming your reputation.
If someone publishes with malicetells others you cheat in your business dealings, then you may be also entitled to aggravated or even punitive damageswould have a much stronger claim that this harms your reputation and is defamatory.
If someone publishes a statement that discriminates against you or is likely to expose you to hatred, they may have violated your '''human rights'''. See our information on [[Human Rights and Discrimination Protection (Script 236)|human rights and discrimination protection (no. 236)]]. |} ===Defamation can take different forms=What is slander?==Slander If defamation is written or otherwise recorded, it is called '''libel'''. Libel is the type of defamation with no that leaves a permanent record. Normally it's a spoken statementExamples would be statements on social media or other online platforms, in newspapers, letters, or emails, or on radio or TV broadcasts. It Libel can also be a hand gesture or something similar. The law treats slander differently from libel: with slander, you may have to prove you suffered damages, in the form of financial loss, to get compensationpicture.
If the words spoken don’t accuse you of do any of these things, then you would have to show that the words caused you a financial lossto establish slander.
==What about the right =Defences to free speech?a claim of defamation===The law protects a person's reputation , but this protection can restrict clash with other rights, such as the right to free speechexpression. The law tries to balance these competing rights. Sometimes, even though someone made makes a defamatory statement that hurt harms a person's reputation, the law considers freedom of speech and expression to be more important. The next section explains the common defences available to a person who makes a defamatory statementworthy of protection.
===1. =Truth or justification====A statement may hurt your reputation, but if it the statement is true, anyone who says it has that is a valid complete defence if you sue them to an action for defamation. They just have to prove that The person who made the statement can defend their statement by proving it is more likely true than not.
===2. =Absolute privilege====People must be able to speak freely Freedom of speech without fear of consequences is considered critical for the effective administration of justice. A statement made in our judicial and quasi-judicial systems, without worrying that someone may sue them. So the law recognizes proceedings is protected by a complete and unqualified defense defence of '''absolute privilege'''. This defense allows people is a complete and unqualified defence to make false and defamatory statements in criminal, quasi-judicial, and judicial proceedings, and in parliamentan action for defamation.
This defense also defence protects a person who makes defamatory statements made in a civil lawsuit. It covers statements made in court, such as in a notice of civil claim or defensewell as all preparatory steps, at an examination including court filings and examinations for discovery, or in court. And this defense protects a person who has made defamatory statements in a criminal case. For example, you cannot sue for defamation based on a complaint to the police—as long as the complaint is not repeated to others.
Absolute privilege also protects a person who makes a defamatory statement statements made in all stages of a quasi-judicial proceedingcriminal case. For example, like a hearing before a professional regulatory body such complaint to the police is protected by absolute privilege — as long as the law societycomplaint is not repeated to others.
And absolute privilege protects statements in Parliament. But absolute privilege does not protect a person who repeats their statement outside of the court or judicial process. ====3. Qualified privilege====Qualified privilege allows a person to make defamatory statements about another person without liability. Qualified privilege arises when a person makes a A defamatory statement made in performing a public or private duty, and they make the statement can be protected by '''qualified privilege'''. The protection only applies to statements made to people with a corresponding interest in receiving itthe statement. An example of qualified privilege is when a previous employer provides a bad reference to a potential employer. If the previous employer honestly believes what they are saying in providing the bad reference, then qualified privilege may protect them in giving the bad reference.
The duty can be legal, social, or moral. The test is whether a person of ordinary intelligence would think a duty existed to communicate the information to the audience it was made to.
There are no exact rules on when qualified privilege arises. It depends on the facts of a case. If the communication is made under qualified privilege, the defense defence applies even when very strong language is used, or the statement is false.
It is hard to rely on this defense defence for statements made on the internet because the defense defence protects a person only if they limit their defamatory statements to people who have an interest in hearing itthe communication. Defamatory statements on the internet are not limited this way. Instead, they go to the publicat large. So they do not meet this test unless it is a matter that the public would be interested in , or the internet publication communication is on a members-only site, or service and not open to the public.
*not made maliciously.
For example, a newspaper columnist may write that about a Member of Parliament (MP) politician who says he supports they support equality and equal rights, but he opposes are opposed to same-sex marriages. The columnist writes may write that the MP politician is hypocritical. If the MP politician sues the columnist for defamation, the columnist may have put forward the defence of fair comment.
===5. =Responsible communication on matters of public interest====In a December 2009 case, the Supreme Court of Canada established this new A more recent defence to a libel claimclaims deals with reporting on matters of public interest. The court said that journalists Journalists should be able to report statements and allegations—even allegations — even if not true—if true — if there’s a '''public interest ''' in distributing the information to a wide audience. This defence, which looks at the whole context of a situation, can apply if:
*the news was urgent, serious, and of public importance, and
*the journalist used reliable sources, and tried to get and report the other side of the story.
The court courts have defined '''journalist''' the term “journalist” widely to include bloggers and anyone else others publishing material of ''public interest in any medium. ====Innocent dissemination====The defence of '''innocent dissemination''' is important in the internet era. Generally, a person who takes part in publishing a defamatory statement is responsible for its publication. This includes a writer, editor, printer, and distributor. But a person who acts only as a distributor may be able to rely on the defence of innocent dissemination if they:*did not know they were distributing a defamatory statement, and*were not negligent in not knowing, and *immediately removed the statement from their website or from distribution when they learned of the defamatory statement. ==Common questions==
===6. Innocent disseminationWhat’s involved in suing someone for defamation?===The defense A defamation lawsuit in British Columbia must be brought in Supreme Court, not Provincial Court. It must be brought within two years of the defamation. This window of innocent dissemination time is important in the internet era'''limitation period'''. Generally, a person who takes part in publishing a The clock starts running when the defamatory statement is responsible for its publicationwas made or published. This includes a writer, editor, printerTo start the lawsuit, you must file documents in court and distributor. But a person who acts only as a distributor may be able deliver them to rely (“serve” them on ) the defense of innocent dissemination if they:*did not know that they were distributing other party. For details, see our information on [[What is Small Claims Court? (Script 165)|starting a defamatory statement*were not negligent in not knowing, and immediately removed it from their website or from distribution when they learned of the defamatory statementlawsuit (no. 165)]].
{| class="wikitable"|align="left"|'''Tip'''Going to BC Supreme Court is expensive. Even if you win, you may spend more on legal fees than you get in damages. A court can award costs to the winner of a lawsuit, but costs cover only a small portion of your full legal costs. For alternatives to bringing a lawsuit, see our information on [[Resolving Disputes Without Going to Court (Script 429)|resolving disputes without going to court (no. 429)]].|} ===What kinds of damages might be awarded in a defamation lawsuit?===If the person bringing a defamation lawsuit (the “plaintiff”) can prove that someone defamed them, and the defendant does not have a defence to the claim, then a court may award '''general damages''' for loss of reputation. General damages can range from small to large amounts. It depends on several factors, including:*the plaintiff’s position and standing in the community,*the nature and seriousness of the defamation, *the mode and extent of publication,*the absence or refusal of any retraction or apology, and*the conduct of the defendant from the time of the defamatory statements to judgment. The mode and extent of publication is a particularly significant consideration in assessing damages in internet defamation cases. The plaintiff may also be entitled to '''special damages''', such as lost earnings, but only if they can prove that the lost earnings resulted from the defamatory statement, and not from other factors.If someone makes defamatory statements with malice, the plaintiff may also be entitled to '''aggravated''' or even '''punitive damages'''. ===What is the effect of an apology?===A newspaper or a TV or radio station that publishes or broadcasts a libel can limit the amount of the damages they may have to pay by publishing or broadcasting an apology right away. But an apology or retraction does not prevent the libeled party someone from suingfor defamation. It just limits the damages.
[updated February 2018]
'''The above was last reviewed for legal accuracy by [https://www.ahbl.ca/people/lawyers/karen-zimmer/?hilite=%27karen%27 Karen Zimmer and edited by John Blois], Alexander Holburn Beaudin + Lang LLP.'''
----
----
{{Dial-A-Law Copyright}}
{{Dial-A-Law_Navbox|type=rights}}