The Ontario government tabled Monday a bill that, if passed into law, would make it easier for a defendant to get a defamation lawsuit dismissed if the defence could convince the judge that they were communicating on a matter of "public interest."
When the previous version of Bill 52 - which died on the order paper earlier this year - was introduced, one politician noted that the directors of an advocacy organization were forced to buy liability insurance out of concern they could be sued as a result of participation in a decision-making process.
Another politician contended that activities that have been subject to lawsuits include reporting environmental violations, contacting the media, speaking at public meetings and complaining to government agencies.
Attorney General Madeline Meilleur introduced Monday Bill 52, the Protection of Public Participation Act, 2014 at Queen's Park in Toronto. If passed into law, Bill 52 would change the Courts of Justice Act to "create a process for getting a proceeding against a person dismissed if it is shown that the proceeding arises from an expression made by the person that relates to a matter of public interest."
Meilleur said in the legislature that Bill 52 "seeks to balance the protection of public participation and freedom of expression and the protection of reputation and economic interests."
The new section of the Courts of Justice Act proposed in the bill are intended to "discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest" and to "reduce the risk that participation by the public in debates on matters of public interest will be hampered by fear of legal action."
In 2013, then-Attorney General John Gerretsen had tabled Bill 83, which was intended to curb "strategic lawsuits" against public participation, or SLAPPs.
"Activities that attract SLAPPs include citizens reporting environmental violations, filing complaints with government agencies, contacting the media, speaking at public meetings, participating at hearings before administrative tribunals or engaging in public campaigns," NDP MPP Paul Miller told the legislature last April during a debate on Bill 83.
Bill 83 was referred in April to the Standing Committee on Social Policy, but died on the order paper with last June's election.
During a debate in 2013 on Bill 83, Progressive Conservative MPP Sylvia Jones noted that in 2010, a water conservation organization in British Columbia had published material opposing a landowner's application for a permit, alleging there could be potential damage to the local watershed. The landowner sued two individuals plus the conservation organization itself. Directors at that organization, Jones said in 2013, were "forced" to buy liability insurance.
Bill 52 also proposes to add a section, to the province's Libel and Slander Act, stipulating that that "any qualified privilege that applies in respect of an oral or written communication on a matter of public interest between two or more persons who have a direct interest in the matter applies regardless of whether the communication is witnessed or reported on by media representatives or other persons."
In 2013, Gerretsen told the legislature that under current legislation, a group of citizens who meet to discuss a problem are protected from libel suits if they make statements without malice.
"If, however, a reporter from a local newspaper, radio station or television station shows up, that privilege is lost," Gerretsen said at the time. "It may come as a surprise to some that, under our current laws, that same group of citizens is no longer protected as soon as their conversations are reported by a third party, such as the press, or are circulated on social media, which of course is very common nowadays."
Qualified privilege is one defence against libel. In Ontario, that defence applies to "fair and accurate reports" on proceedings of legislative bodies, commissions of inquiry, public authorities, rulings of courts, tribunals and official inquiries, as well as documents produced or discussed in open court or before a tribunal or inquiry, according to The Canadian Justice System and the Media, a document published by the Canadian Judicial Council.
Quoting from media lawyer Michael Crawford, CJC notes the "classical definition" of libel is "any statement which tends to discredit or lower an individual 'in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.'"
Source: http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/news/ontario-government-proposes-limits-on-defamation-lawsuits-for-public-interest-communications/1003375899/?&er=NA
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comments.
Canadian Insurance News does not endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comments, you acknowledge that we have the right to reproduce, broadcast and publicize those comments or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever.