Cheap at half the price

Mark Francis
#1. April 13th, 2008, at 5:53 AM.

I doubt he’s interested in the money, and I doubt he’s interested in stringing the proceedings along. The longer it takes, the longer he waits for a judge’s ruling.

And the more it costs him to get there.

For claiming 50Gs, he gets a judge better than a JP, and streamlined process to a favourable ruling.

Also, I doubt he thinks he needs discovery. The defendants are doing a great job publicly screwing themselves.

Sounds like a plan I’d follow.

john begley
#2. April 13th, 2008, at 8:10 AM.

i had no notion….i had no idea Oscar sued the Marquess…..i’ve always thought the only action was the fisticuffer vs. finian o’flaherty.

the things one learns here.

James Goneaux
#3. April 13th, 2008, at 8:49 AM.

Ah, the old “looked me in the eye” bit. Isn’t that kinda like using a “Matlock” episode as your legal basis for arguing something?

Mr. Warman was also under sworn oath when he said he never used faked names while posting. Then, when caught, he “remembered” that he did:

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/images/transcript.gif

Which leads to an interesting legal question: what exactly is perjury? If you say one thing, then correct yourself immediately, probably not. I guess it depends on what you mean by “immediately”…

cinyc
#4. April 13th, 2008, at 9:15 AM.

Speaking of Small Claims Court, Mr. Warman actually tried to file at least one libel suit there. Seriously. It was ultimately removed to the Ontario Superior Court at the defendant’s motion because a small claims court isn’t exactly the right forum for a libel case.

Disclosure is even more important where truth is the ultimate issue. I’m surprised that the Ontario rules even allow a simplified procedure to be used in libel suits.

Mark Francis
#5. April 13th, 2008, at 10:24 AM.

I don’t know that case, but you can certainly tort for libel in Small Claims in Ontario:

2007 October 29
Shell v Cherrier, [2007] O.J. No. 5152

The Ontario Small Claims Court awarded the plaintiff labour lawyer general damages of $7,500 over two defamatory emails sent to prominent members of the union movement and the public.

There are several torts which do not involve monetary loss or property damage which you can certainly pursue in Small Claims: Trespass, assault, battery…

cinyc
#7. April 13th, 2008, at 12:12 PM.

It seems to me that a libel case ultimately depends on credibility. Mr. Warman’s statement of claim ultimately comes down to his word that he didn’t post the Cools message versus what was posted on the defendant’s websites. Again, this seems like the type of thing that ought not to be hashed out in a Small Claims Court or under some simplified rules where disclosure isn’t an option if the defendants don’t feel they can effectively mount a defense in those venues. Especially because truth is the ultimate defense in any libel case.

Mark Francis - you’re probably correct about Ontario law - I’m certainly no expert. I’d also note that Mr. Warman also successfully sued Jason Ouendyke for libel in an Ontario Small Claims Court (or at least got the defendant’s bankruptcy trustee to agree to pay out on the case at some point). One other person Warman sued, Tom Kennedy, said that he did get his case moved out of Small Claims.

To Mr. Warman, the libel laws seem to be another quiver in his arsenal of “maximum disruption”. Will he win all of those suits? Perhaps. Canadian libel laws are far too slanted toward plaintiffs, in my opinion. Launching libel actions almost seems to be the new national sport these days.

But even if Mr. Warman does win, the ends don’t always justify the means. Taking on neo-Nazis in their basements is one thing. Few watch and few cares. But going after mainstream conservatives and the National Post is quite another. You can win a libel judgment but still get a black eye in the court of public opinion.

Rod Blaine
#8. April 13th, 2008, at 12:17 PM.

Odds of WK writing following sentence on his blog:

“Richie Rich looked me in the eye and said, ‘Yes, Warren, I did do it, but it was for the GREATER GOOD!’.”

– 0.13%

In the immortal words of Christine Keeler…

Mark Francis
#9. April 13th, 2008, at 8:15 PM.

I don’t see why how one can leap to the conclusion, let alone opinion, that Warman using simplified procedures is due to fear. In his shoes, I’d likely do the same thing, and, frankly, most libel payouts do not exceed $50,000 in general damages.

Yes, you can win as a libel plaintiff, but lose in the court of public opinion. But… is this Warman case getting that much press? And, you have to consider which audience Warman is concerned about. Is it he worried about the opinion of the public at large or freepers or bloggers? Or is he worried about his ‘audience’ who could be affected by the belief that he posted the Cools piece?

I’m hugely in favour of reforming our libel laws, but so far, Warman’s case hasn’t really bothered me any.

Peter
#10. April 14th, 2008, at 4:41 AM.

From the Omtario Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule:

76.02 (1) The procedure set out in this Rule shall be used in an action if the following conditions are satisfied:
1. The plaintiff’s claim is exclusively for one or more of the following:
i. Money.
ii. Real property.
iii. Personal property.
2. The total of the following amounts is $50,000 or less, exclusive of interest and costs:
i. The amount of money claimed, if any,
ii. The fair market value of any real property and of any personal property, as at the date the action is commenced.

As Jay’s comment structure doesn’t allow for bold or italics, I couldn’t highlight the word “exclusively” in Rule 76.02(1)1. Check out Warman’s claim. We may all think that his claim for an apology is an inconsequential add-on, but that isn’t the way it is seen in libel actions.