Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
I don't think much of Wenzel, but isn't the fact that so many of us know who he is now and have that feeling fairly indicative of defamation? Honestly before the video and campaign I wouldn't have known who he was, or basically had no opinion.
|
No, it is not defamation to have the opinion that he is an entitled dirtbag. It is Wenzel's own actions - both on that taped meeting, and in his subsequent belly aching - that have led people to form a negative opinion of him.
IANAL (obviously), but on the merits of the complaint, his crying about the Godfather reference is immaterial, imo as it is obviously likewise opinion (and taken out of context at that). It's the statements Nenshi is alleged to have made claiming Wenzel broke the law with his campaign contributions that will matter, I think. If Nenshi can show that he reasonably believed this is true, he's likely safe. If not, Wenzel may have a case. Of course, he'll have a ridiculously hard time proving $5 million in damages even if he does win the suit.
This is basically, as alluded to above, the Canadian equivalent of a SLAPP suit. Wenzel doesn't want people talking about how he and his cohorts appeared to be trying to buy city council.