Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
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.
|
Well my point isn't that I think he can win a suit against the mayor. I just think its pretty obvious he was defamed here. I'm not sure how he implicates the mayor as the one who defamed him though.
The damages are just what is alleged in the statement of claim, and aren't a big deal. Think of that more as an upper limit. People always get upset at the prospect of paying $5M bases on a statement of claim when in reality these things settle for much cheaper (assuming anything is paid out).