Patrick Brown/CTV

[troutman]

Originally Posted by GGG

The liable suit will be interesting. I suspect it only focuses on the age of the first complaintant and Brown never is put under oath.

Libel suit. He would have to go under oath in a discovery in a civil action, which is probably why it will never happen.

Many are talking about due process - by this I think they mean the presumption of innocence. This only applies in criminal proceedings.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/presu...ence-1.4509334

To insist on the strict application of the presumption of innocence in everyday life is an absurd and insidious act of complicity to the realities exposed by the #MeToo movement. In no other aspect of our daily lives do we employ the presumption of innocence or apply a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence should not be used as an excuse to disregard common sense.

[Kjesse]

One thing to note is that in a defamation suit, it is a type of strict liability. The plaintiff only has to show that the statements were made and they lowered the Plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person. From there the Defendants have the burden of proof of establish a defense, such as truth.

In the CTV story, its already clear they won't be able to establish the truth of everything they published, so they're a sitting duck.

As troutman said though, Brown would still be subject to questioning under oath as to what happened.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Kjesse

One thing to note is that in a defamation suit, it is a type of strict liability. The plaintiff only has to show that the statements were made and they lowered the Plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person. From there the Defendants have the burden of proof of establish a defense, such as truth.

In the CTV story, its already clear they won't be able to establish the truth of everything they published, so they're a sitting duck.

As troutman said though, Brown would still be subject to questioning under oath as to what happened.

Sure, but what are the remedies.....that's always been the doozie.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by troutman

The presumption of innocence should not be used as an excuse to disregard common sense.

Yes, because common sense has been the hallmark of this movement to date. Give me a break. When people talk about presuming innocence in these cases, the only alternative is presuming guilt. In other words, "let's wait and see and not rush to judgment" is the same thing as presuming innocence. People who take that position aren't talking about waiting for a court to find the accused guilty of a crime - or most people aren't, at least. The evidence against Cosby was overwhelming, and so common sense dictated that he was probably guilty, and people proceeded accordingly. In other cases, like this one, it's not so clear. Yet we have a chorus of people insisting that we "believe victims". Why would a presumption of guilt be at all preferable to a presumption of innocence?

Leaving that aside, the principles underlying the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard - in particular that an ordered liberal society will prefer that ten guilty people go free rather than see one innocent person's life ruined by the sorts of penalties meted out by our criminal justice system - are not some archaic, technical legal doctrine. It's a sort of social contract we all enter into to guard against the sorts of morally charged overreach of so-called justice that are inherent to human nature. Witch hunts, the spanish inquisition, McCarthyism were not accidents - we humans are predisposed to such things. So, as in court, if you're going to do something that will ruin a person's career and do immense damage to their life, to a similar degree as a criminal sentence would, you'd best be very, very sure that person actually did the horrible things you accuse them of.

The principle underlying journalistic standards in this are are similarly easy to boil down - you owe a duty of care to the subject of your article not to print falsehoods that will harm them. Enforcing that duty is important because the publisher's interest in a good, juicy story will always stand in conflict to careful vetting. If you print something that's wrong, unless it can be said that there was nothing you could reasonably have done to prevent the outcome, you should be paying a significant penalty to the harmed party. That again is common sense fairness.

[GordonBlue]

flipping through a couple of article son this train this morning, so I don't have handy links, or know if it is accurate.
One said that Brown was notified at 4:30pm by CTV for a response to their story that aired 10:00 that night. so less than 6 hours. wouldn't a news organization normally give more time to the accused to offer their defense for the story?

The other thing I read is that it's claimed that Brown had no part of writing his resignation or the release of it. if that's true, perhaps he was brought down from within his own party.

[GordonBlue]

here it is...
The recording was obtained on Friday morning, one day after Global News aired an interview with Brown in which he appeared to suggest that he never actually resigned as party leader. In that interview, Brown contended that a resignation letter was sent out on his behalf “without” his permission and that he didn’t know what he “would have done the next day.”

“I didn’t want to resign. I wanted a chance to meet with caucus in person to refute these allegations and then together make a decision to go forward,” Brown said. “The resignation was actually sent out on my behalf without my permission at the time.”

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/patrick-b...line-1.3806578

[Wormius]

I think it has gotten to where "believe" and "take seriously" are being confused. It should really be "treat accusations seriously" not just "treat accusations as fact".

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's a sort of social contract we all enter into to guard against the sorts of morally charged overreach of so-called justice that are inherent to human nature. Witch hunts, the spanish inquisition, McCarthyism were not accidents - we humans are predisposed to such things.

This seems to be a lesson each generation has to learn first-hand.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Sure, but what are the remedies.....that's always been the doozie.

Proving damage s is often the difficult part. In this case, one of the complications would be Mr. Brown’s decision to resign? Can he prove that the CTV report “forced” him to resign? He still has a duty to mitigate, after all. Interesting stuff.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Proving damage s is often the difficult part. In this case, one of the complications would be Mr. Brown’s decision to resign? Can he prove that the CTV report “forced” him to resign? He still has a duty to mitigate, after all. Interesting stuff.

It is interesting, but isn't the proximate cause of his damages the allegations put forth by CTV? I mean the guy clearly had no intention of resigning until he was forced into it due to the allegations put forward. It seems like a pretty easy line to draw, but I'm no lawyer.

[GordonBlue]

well, I guess Brown believes he's telling the truth. he passed a "lie detector" test.

http://torontosun.com/news/provincia...-detector-test

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Slava

It is interesting, but isn't the proximate cause of his damages the allegations put forth by CTV? I mean the guy clearly had no intention of resigning until he was forced into it due to the allegations put forward. It seems like a pretty easy line to draw, but I'm no lawyer.

What's the quantum of damages on that?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Slava

It is interesting, but isn't the proximate cause of his damages the allegations put forth by CTV? I mean the guy clearly had no intention of resigning until he was forced into it due to the allegations put forward. It seems like a pretty easy line to draw, but I'm no lawyer.

I don’t know. If I was defending CTV, I’d be putting him to the strict proof of any assertion that resignation was his only reasonable option. Maybe he can prove it, maybe he can’t. If he can’t, then suddenly a lot of his damages start to look self-inflicted. And if I’m CTV, I say that I’m not liable for any of those self-inflicted damages.

This is obviously just off the top of my head but seems like an interesting issue to me.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I'm not sure that he would have to prove that it was his only reasonable option - it seems to me that it would likely be sufficient to show that it was one reasonable option.

[CaptainCrunch]

Chances are that this never goes to any kind of trial and CTV settles.

The last thing they want is to have their drawers pulled down in court on this one.

[troutman]

Damage Awards for Libel in Canada
http://www.cyberlibel.com/oldsite/damage.html

Pre Hill v. Scientology
1. From approximately 1880 until the decision of Hill v. Scientology in 1995, awards for libel actions in Canada were very modest in comparison to the United Kingdom and the United States. In all this period there are only six awards greater than $100,000 as calculated in 1994 Canadian dollars. The largest was a non-media claim in the amount of $303,000.
2. Of these six awards, four were against the media, three were in the common law provinces and one was in Quebec, which is governed by a civil code.
3. The balance of the awards were very modest and most were under $50,000 calculated in today's dollars. There was very little difference between the awards granted against the media and non-media defendants.

Post Hill v. Scientology
Since Hill, there have been several decision in excess of $100,000.

https://www.cbabc.org/For-the-Public...our-Rights/240

If you can prove that someone libeled you, and that person does not have a good defence (see the section on defences below), then a court will presume that you suffered damages and award you money to pay for your damaged reputation

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm not sure that he would have to prove that it was his only reasonable option - it seems to me that it would likely be sufficient to show that it was one reasonable option.

You may be right. That would obviously be a much easier test. I’d have to do some research. Either way, still interesting.

[Flash Walken]

Fedeli’s announcement come after a brief audio recording of Brown during a conference call with the party caucus the night the allegations became public, was leaked online.

CTV News Toronto obtained an audio recording of Brown informing members of caucus that he was resigning as leader of the Progressive Conservative party.

The recording was obtained on Friday morning, one day after Global News aired an interview with Brown in which he appeared to suggest that he never actually resigned as party leader.

In that interview, Brown contended that a resignation letter was sent out on his behalf “without” his permission and that he didn’t know what he “would have done the next day.”

“The resignation was actually sent out on my behalf without my permission at the time,” Brown said.

Brown told Global News that “he understood that they (his staff) were drafting a copy of the resignation” but he said that he was “shocked” when he “found out it was sent out without an opportunity to see it.”

The conference call on Jan. 24 happened hours after CTV News published a story containing allegations of sexual misconduct. In the audio obtained, Brown is heard referring to the allegations as “character assassination” but he goes on to state that he doesn’t “want any of us set back on our mission to defeat Kathleen Wynne.”

He then calmly offers his resignation to caucus.

“When you work 20 hours a day like I do on defeating this government I would never want to be an obstacle to you defeating this government and I have asked (Director of Communications) Rebecca (Thompson) to prepare a statement that I will resign and I have asked her to figure out at what point tomorrow that is best,” Brown said in the conference call. “She has drafted a statement while you were on the call and she can read it to you if you want to hear what we have put together so far.”

Brown’s resignation statement was later posted to the Ontario PC party website just before 1:30 a.m.

There were two reports published on Thursday citing sources who said that Brown believes he never actually resigned as leader of the PC party, though he did take to Twitter to distance himself from the reports.

“I appreciate the enthusiasm but I did not authorize this. I am solely focused on clearing my name, not technicalities,” he said.

Brown wouldn’t respond to questions from reporters about the resignation who asked him to clarify the contradicting information.

He would only say he would answer all questions at an event tomorrow. Details of that event have not yet been made public.

https://www.cp24.com/news/brown-ente...ions-1.3806525

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

So his recorded statement says:

“When you work 20 hours a day like I do on defeating this government I would never want to be an obstacle to you defeating this government and I have asked (Director of Communications) Rebecca (Thompson) to prepare a statement that I will resign and I have asked her to figure out at what point tomorrow that is best,” Brown said in the conference call. “She has drafted a statement while you were on the call and she can read it to you if you want to hear what we have put together so far.”

He then said he was shocked that the statement was publically released without him having a chance to review and sign off on it.

Those two things do not appear to be inconsistent to me.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

So his recorded statement says:



He then said he was shocked that the statement was publically released without him having a chance to review and sign off on it.

Those two things do not appear to be inconsistent to me.

The first part of his statement is the inconsistent part unless something is missing from the recording. From Gordonblues post above.

I didn’t want to resign. I wanted a chance to meet with caucus in person to refute these allegations and then together make a decision to go forward,”

The recording he is stating he will resign at some point tomorrow. In the interview he states that he wanted to discuss with the caucus in person before determining if he would resign. I agree the second part of his statement is not inconsistent with the recording. It's sounds like the party released the comm directors versions and this could have occurred without Brown authorizing the final wording.