In the case McCann v. The Ottawa Sun, 1993 CanLII 5507 (ON SC), the General Division of the Ontario Court was correct when stating the published words by The Ottawa Sun were insufficient to carry the Mayor of Pembroke’s action of defamation. At the same time, the columnist’s comments can be considered a humorous remark, which is a prove individuals in Canada have freedom of speech, which is the ability to communicate ideas without the interference of the state.
To establish a cause of action for defamation, the plaintiff must prove: the statement published was defamatory, meaning the words bring the person’s reputation into hatred, contempt or ridicule; the words, in fact, referred to the plaintiff and finally, the words have been published, meaning somebody – other than the plaintiff – had access to the statement.
In 1993, the Mayor of Pembroke, Terance McCann, claimed damages for libel against The Ottawa Sun
…show more content…
In this case, McCann, the plaintiff, argued the defamatory words written in the article affected him as the representative of the City of Pembroke. However, the general rule states comments attacking substantially larger groups cannot sue for defamation unless the publication singles a particular member of the group.
Since the article does not state any specific identifiers nor includes an innuendo about the mayor, his allegation failed to complete the second part of the test. As the court stated, “an action for defamation is uniquely personal, and is based on injury to one’s personal reputation.” Therefore, his claim for defamatory words towards his persona is unverifiable and not actionable.
On the other hand, if a group tries to bring an action for defamation, they must be relatively small. If the same statement referred to all members of the group, each individual in the group has the ability to sue The Ottawa Sun for defamation, as stated in
McCulloch vs Maryland Summary In case of McCulloch vs Maryland is a landmark case that questioned the extent of federal government 's separation of power from state government. A problem arose when the Second Bank of America was established. With the War of 1812 and it’s financial suffering in the past, the government sought to create a bank with the purpose of securing the ability to fund future wars and financial endeavors. Many states were disappointed with this new organization, one of them being Maryland.
Holland v. Cheney Bros., Inc., 22 So.3d 648 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009) Appellant/Petitioner: Rafael Holland Appellee/Respondent: Cheney Bros., Inc. Facts: The claimant, Rafael Holland challenged the legal sufficiency of the Judge of Compensation (JCC) denying the request of temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits.
Predication: On 11/11/17, Asset Protection Manager (APM) Kristin Catucci contacted APM Jakub Orlando regarding Customer Service Associate (CSA) Anthony Stoddart who was suspected of taking money out of the register for personal benefit. Facts: On 11/14/17, APM Orlando reviewed CCTV footage along with POS electronic journal to confirm this allegation. CCTV footage reviled that CSA Stoddart took money from the bottom of the register and placed it into his pocket.
One of the very first trails that would gravely expand the powers of Congress through one single clause, the Commerce Clause, would have to be the Gibbons vs. Ogden case, which took place in circa 1824. The dispute began due to the fact that the state of New York gave Aaron Ogden a state license that allowed him to operate his steamboat ferries between New Jersey and New York. Conflicts emerged, since Thomas Gibbons, who received his license from the federal government, also operated his ferries along the same route. Both men believed that their own license was superior to the other. This dispute then made its way to the Supreme Court.
The orders in council, Gibbons v. Ogden, the “corrupt bargain,” and the Jacksonian Democracy all involved the “common people” of America. First of all, the orders in council was passed by Great Britain in 1807. This permitted the imprisonment of sailors and forbade neutral ships from visiting ports. Great Britain wanted America to stop all trade with France since they were the enemy at the time. This was not supported by the middle and lower class Americans.
He also supported this tort as using some justice opinions. Responding to the public figure argument, Grutman noted that being a public figure should not take away someone’s rights as a human being. If libel could not protect public figures from verbal assault, then the Court should support the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress to protect
Keegstra appealed to the Court of Queen’s Bench, before his trial, for an order to overturn the charge. The defense argued that the appeal should be allowed because sections 319(2) and 319(3) (a) of the Criminal Code are constitutional. Section 319(3) (a) of the code states that a person cannot be convicted of promoting hate if he or she establishes that the statement is true, guaranteed in section 11 of the Charter. However, Keegstra was unable to demonstrate the truth of the many prejudice statements he made to his students and many of Keegstra’s former students testified against him. Keegstra appealed his conviction and claimed the conviction was in violation of section 2(b).
Business Law Case Study Essay: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S (2014) Facts: The Green family runs and owns Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a national arts and skills chain that has over 500 stores and they have over 13,000 employees. Other facts of the case are that the Green family has been able to organize the business around the values of the Christian faith and has explicitly expressed the desire to run the company as told by Biblical principles, one of which is the belief that the utilization of contraception is wicked. Also, the facts show that under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), occupation -founded group health care plans must offer certain sorts of preventative care, for example, FDA-accepted contraceptive approaches.
Westover v United States: In Kansas City, Westover was arrested as a suspect in two Kansas City robberies. The FBI received a report that Westover was wanted in California on a felony charge. The night of the arrest and the next morning, Westover was questioned by local police. FBI agents also interrogated Westover for two and a half hours at the station. Westover signed two statements, which were prepared by one of the agents during the questioning, to both California robberies.
As Holmes had stated there are other forms that are not protected which are known as lewd, obscene, profane, libelous, and insulting words. The case Chaplinsky v New Hampshire in 1942 determined that fighting words and other forms of speech are not protected by the First Amendment. Chaplinsky had argued that the New Hampshire law violated his Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits states from infringing on citizens’ fundamental freedoms and as a result, kept him from exercising his First Amendment rights of free speech. While states are not allowed to inhibit expression of ideas, the Court did not convict him for the expression of his ideas but because his words (calling religion a ‘racket’ and a city marshal ‘damned racketeer’ and ‘damned fascist’)
Sauvé v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) (2002) Plaintiff - Richard Sauvé Defendant - Attorney General of Canada, Chief Electoral Officer of Canada & the Solicitor General of Canada FACTS The Plaintiff: Richard Sauvé is a former member of the biker gang ‘Satan’s Choice’. In 1975, Sauvé was sentenced to 25 years in federal prison for the murder of an opposing gang member. In 1993, Sauvé started a long journey fighting an injustice that denied all inmates the right to vote.
As in the United Kingdom the burden of proof in a libel case lies with the
The article argues that the courts should only view harmful speech in the same eyes and rule them the same as if they were conduct harms. The source then discusses how many scholars believe that freedom of speech only applies when the benefits outweigh the harms, regarding what is being said. The article does a good job of approaching the problem through a semi-neutral lens. The article clearly lets its opinion be known at times; however, it approaches the opposite side of the argument in a fair manner. The article will be incredibly beneficial because it discusses when freedom of speech should not apply with a neutral approach.
Why 2nd Amendment Is So Popular Background Information The second amendment is probably the most controversial amendment in the Bill of Rights. The second amendment is stated in the Bill of Rights as, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"(“Second Amendment”) This could mean that you have the right to possess a small gun for self-defence purposes only, but the real meaning is a very controversial argument. Focusing on this amendment is important because it is a very disputed amendment still debated today.
On the sidewalks of Rochester in the year 1942, Walter Chaplinsky was arrested for repeating ' You are a God damned racketeer' and 'a damned Fascist’ to a police officer. Chaplinsky’s statements violated a New Hampshire law prohibiting offensive, derisive, or annoying words or sounds said unto an individual or party in a public place. He appealed the decision of the District Court, and when it came to the Supreme Court, they came to a profound decision. Supreme Court Justice Murphy said there are certain words that could reasonably result in a fight or a breach of peace when uttered.