Rob Ford's Toronto

[Oriana]

I smell a relapse coming in the near future. Don't have any facts to back this up, just a feeling. I hope I'm right. Don't usually wish ill on others but damn it, I just don't care in this case.

A relapse that is actually caught, that is.

 

[hper]

Libel actually; according to Wikipedia:

"Libel

Libel is defined as defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures. The law of libel originated in the 17th century in England. With the growth of publication came the growth of libel and development of the tort of libel."

Despite the fact it was written about, Doug's comment was never written, posted or otherwise broadcasted by himself. It was spoken. Therefore, it does not meet the legal definition of libel (AFAIK) but could meet that of *slander*. Which is harder to civilly prosecute because real monetary damage must be shown to be done. And , further, could such be demonstrated by tying the 'payback' comment to the relief of duty?

As for Doug's response to such, it would appear limited to 1 of 5 possible defences, that of (4) 'Fair Comment'. Upon that narrowing, it would seem to be further limited to one of three pillars under that rubric, 'opinion'.

Yes, Blair's action is for defamation, but it is unlikely to succeed as libel.

 

[themarc]

http://instagram.com/p/rnx-q4Ao0q/

ETA the two girls to his left:

Meet Jennifer Love and Alyssa Lioutas of Duet PR, a boutique public relations firm in Toronto that specializes in creating and improving brand awareness through strategic media outreach. Duet PR develops customized publicity plans to define your brand, position it in the media and ultimately boost your business.

ETAA: Looks like the pr ladies arranged a mayoral shout-out for Lou Dawgs back in April:

https://twitter.com/duetpr/status/456171437766623233

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...2862231608.204824.400286236608&type=1&theater

All the more reason not to hire this firm.

 

[Videodrome]

I smell a relapse coming in the near future. Don't have any facts to back this up, just a feeling. I hope I'm right. Don't usually wish ill on others but damn it, I just don't care in this case.

A relapse that is actually caught, that is.

In the past, the Ford campaign had set a relapse at his last change to mess up, but it seems that they have backed off that idea.

 

[The Golem]

So now it appears the context of Rob's statements about not needing transit if you don't have a job is that there's no point in expanding transit if there aren't more people being employed who will need that transit. The old bums-on-seats paradigm.

Which is interesting, since Rob Ford probably knows and cares even less about job creation than he does about building transit.

I thought Ford's argument was that more subways are needed to ease traffic congestion.

But mostly his statement shows that if he was unemployed he'd stay home drinking and smoking drugs all day every day like his best friends Sandro and Bruno.

 

[Cooper]

So here's what I wonder, not being a lawyer and all:

Doesn't the plaintiff in a civil action regarding defamation by slander have to prove that some sort of monetary 'injury' was sustained? Funny thing, Chief lost his job. Doug claimed the 'subpoena leak' was some sort of 'payback' for that occurrence. Will this complicate Doug's defence? Because...

As I understand it, of the five possible defences (See #4 of 'Defences') Doug has, the only one possibly open to him is 'fair comment', and of that he can only satisfy one pillar, i.e., opinion. On which he has been leaning like a drunk on a lampost throughout his public utterances.

So, without an abject apology, will he get his ass handed to him? And, even with an apology that satisfies Blair's conditions, can Blair just say 'Fuck it. Take that smarmy asshole down'?

A court decides two things in a defamation case. First, whether a statement (written or spoken) was defamatory and, second, what damage was caused by the statement. So, it's possible to win a defamation suit but not get any damages because the defamation did not cause financial harm, (roughly speaking). Back when I was school studying the basics of this stuff, we were told stories gangsters who won defamation suits but received no damages because their reputations were already so low, they couldn't really be harmed by comments that lowered their reputation in the community. Not sure if those were true or not.)

In Blair's case, he'll probably argue DoFo's statements were designed to damage his professional reputation, which impacts his ability to find other work etc. These would be specific and general damages. I think a judge can also award punitive damages in Ontario, but I'm not 100% sure.

Apologies themselves are not antidotes in defamation case. If they are prompt and sincere, a court will consider them as mitigating factors, but they won't get you off the hook. So, even if Doug apologizes, Blair can still proceed with the suit. As to whether Doug gets his ass handed to him, well, that's a matter for the courts to decide.

 

[Oriana]

I thought Ford's argument was that more subways are needed to ease traffic congestion.

But mostly his statement shows that if he was unemployed he'd stay home drinking and smoking drugs all day every day like his best friends Sandro and Bruno.

The statement is utter nonsense, regardless if it was somewhat out of context. Unemployed, disabled, elderly people, parents with children don't use transit? Transit is only used for work? I thought he was saying that transit is no longer the important issue, so he's gonna get us some jobs instead yeah? And until he gets us all of those jobs so we can go to work, transit can wait. The Star updated their story, and basically he's just a bumbling idiot without a platform and no solutions. At least that's how it came across in the article.

 

[Cooper]

Despite the fact it was written about, Doug's comment was never written, posted or otherwise broadcasted by himself. It was spoken. Therefore, it does not meet the legal definition of libel (AFAIK) but could meet that of *slander*. Which is harder to civilly prosecute because real monetary damage must be shown to be done. And , further, could such be demonstrated by tying the 'payback' comment to the relief of duty?

As for Doug's response to such, it would appear limited to 1 of 5 possible defences, that of (4) 'Fair Comment'. Upon that narrowing, it would seem to be further limited to one of three pillars under that rubric, 'opinion'.

Yes, Blair's action is for defamation, but it is unlikely to succeed as libel.

The fact that Doug made his comments to the media, he could reasonably assume they would be published. So, he doesn't have an easy out here. A fair comment defence is an option, but again there are challenges. I'm not up-to-date or expert in this, but fair comment generally has to be something a reasonble person could conclude and based on true facts. I think the "payback" part might have a chance as a reasonable assumption given the timing of events, but the stuff about leaking (a breach of professional ethics) might be more difficult. Did Bill Blair talk to any reporters or discuss the RoFo subpeona? Or is Doug just making up stuff again? If he's just winging it, he could be in trouble.

Lastly, libel and slander are both forms of defamation. The difference lies in how the defamatory comments were distributed. I think the legal tests are pretty much the same in both cases (although I don't have enough broadcast experience to have a feel for what happens in spoken-word cases.)

 

[Kat_YYZ]

http://instagram.com/p/rnx-q4Ao0q/

ETA the two girls to his left:

Meet Jennifer Love and Alyssa Lioutas of Duet PR, a boutique public relations firm in Toronto that specializes in creating and improving brand awareness through strategic media outreach. Duet PR develops customized publicity plans to define your brand, position it in the media and ultimately boost your business.

ETAA: Looks like the pr ladies arranged a mayoral shout-out for Lou Dawgs back in April:

https://twitter.com/duetpr/status/456171437766623233

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...2862231608.204824.400286236608&type=1&theater

Interesting... I saw his car at the gas station near his place around 9:20 pm. Guess he didn't go home ( or didn't stay there ).

 

[casita]

^ That beast must be a real gas-guzzler. I wonder if it spends a lot of time idling?

View attachment 31404

 

[Kat_YYZ]

There's also this from RoFo's twitter (which he doesn't use himself, as we know)
https://twitter.com/TOMayorFord/status/499348321228439552
Stopped at @Orestolounge tonight, great to see innovative, creative restaurants all over #toronto #topoli
8:14 PM - 12 Aug 2014

that place is on King as well. Same suit. Hmmm...

 

[BeefSupreme]

Interesting... I saw his car at the gas station near his place around 9:20 pm. Guess he didn't go home ( or didn't stay there ).

.. Did he visit the esso station washroom I wonder?

 

[themarc]

The fact that Doug made his comments to the media, he could reasonably assume they would be published. So, he doesn't have an easy out here. A fair comment defence is an option, but again there are challenges. I'm not up-to-date or expert in this, but fair comment generally has to be something a reasonble person could conclude and based on true facts. I think the "payback" part might have a chance as a reasonable assumption given the timing of events, but the stuff about leaking (a breach of professional ethics) might be more difficult. Did Bill Blair talk to any reporters or discuss the RoFo subpeona? Or is Doug just making up stuff again? If he's just winging it, he could be in trouble.

Lastly, libel and slander are both forms of defamation. The difference lies in how the defamatory comments were distributed. I think the legal tests are pretty much the same in both cases (although I don't have enough broadcast experience to have a feel for what happens in spoken-word cases.)

I think Doug has jumped the shark - as has Rob - and they will very soon be foot notes.

 

[Kat_YYZ]

^ That beast must be a real gas-guzzler. I wonder if it spends a lot of time idling?

he pulled directly into a parking spot in front of the little store first, not the gas bays. I drove on so I don't know if he got gas afterwards, but that would be odd to do it in that order. I figured he was getting snacks or whatever.

.. Did he visit the esso station washroom I wonder?

well now that's a possibility. his house is 1 minute away, though, if he actually needs the washroom...

 

[sweetlou]

While Robbie trolls King W for selfies, Andray Domise got the Argos to donate 150 tickets and Ascot Coop to donate three buses. Tonight, 150 neighbourhood kids went to an Argos game.