Skip to content

Narrow screen resolution Wide screen resolution Auto adjust screen size Increase font size Decrease font size Default font size default color brick color green color
DEFAMER UNMASKING ORDER Carleton CC # 282 v Yahoo ! 2017/07/19 23:06  
Sought NOT by the Director targets of accusations but rather by their condo corporation, an Ottawa court order has been obtained via an undefended "Norwich Order".

The Order would try to force multi-national YAHOO ! to track down & unmask someone without a Yahoo account.

Suggesting an 'inside job', that "someone" - the alleged defamer - had managed to obtain e-mail addresses of all owners & residents. . . .

Then beefs were circulated about the Directors personally.

1- It is unclear if at all any beefs targetted the condo corporation itself, which is the sole Order seeker here

An arguably non-victim demanding remedy by a non-involved third party ? Could fill a lot of court rooms attempting to turn uninvolved third parties into private detectives . . .

2 - Were the e-mails actually defamatory ?

Nothing alleged about theft . . . child abuse . . . infectious diseases . . . . bankruptcy . . . moral torpitude . . . etc

Best not to repeat the alleged defamation(s)here, but pretty thin-skinned to lose sleep over such I.M.O. . . .

3 - See any irony about condo corporations / pre-condo Building Schemes demanding access to withheld personal data ? . . . . . . . deploring impenetrable secrecy ? . . . governancers deploring criticisms from stakeholders ?

Carleton CC # 282 v Yahoo! Inc 2017 ONSC 4385 issued July 18 2017

Successful counsel R Escayola LLB Gowling WLG ( July 19/17 article : Defamation: Condos must protect the reputation of its directors” condo-law-blog-Ontario

Contextual : Even if this Order is lawful, is it an appropriate response to governance beefs ?

California S.L.A.P.P. partially successful in use to suppress beefing ( from the universe that is sometimes able to throttle corporate whistleblowers unless they flee abroad )

BOSWELL v Retreat 2016 CAL

The Cal Appeal decision July 11/16 : 20ASSN
This CALIFORNIA ANTI - SLAPP usage GETS MIXED SUCCESS – SUCCESS ALBEIT MIXED - against HOA dissenter online critics.

Dispute included shocking but believable physical shenanigans by an out-of- control President of The Retreat, a 521 residence HOA in Corona CAL. The bottom line : both stronger abusers & weaker victims have theoretical access to legal protections / free speech throttling powers even though widely such remedies might usually have ‘top of mind’ as something “to protect the ‘weak from the strong” !

Minnesota HOA dispute : TRO restraining orders finally struck down against online critic after Minnesota courts took the time to realize it was throttling legit or defensible comment . . .

SEE also misuse of personal safety HRO harassment restraining order ( to suppress online criticism ) as initially even approved by a Minnesota lower court until ultimately curtailed by Minnesota court of appeal

Pittel round 2: Sharper Management, LLC, et al., petitioners, Appellants, vs. Melvin Pittel, Respondent Minnesota Ct of Appeals A16-0251 issued August 29 2016 )
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
lawyer Michelle Kelly reviews DEFAMER UNMASKING ORDER Carleton CC # 282 v Yahoo ! 2017/07/26 18:56  
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
but were the anonymous postings "public interest"' comments ? SLAPP ? 2017/07/29 13:24  
( addendum Oct 17 2017 : SLAPP issues explained/discussed at Law Times article of Oct 2/17 “Wave of anti-SLAPP rulings to come” by Shannon Kari ( A partial shield of genuine "public interest" comment, if successfully triggered by the critic forcing the target plaintiff to persuade the court that its lawsuit has “substantial merit” and “there is no valid defence to the proceeding.” Is the harm caused by the expression “sufficiently serious” that the public interest is greater to continue with the proceeding than to protect the expression ? )

* * * *

Protection of Public Participation Act, 2015 S.O. 2015 ch23
( had been Bill 52)
Chapter 23
An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, the Libel and Slander Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act in order to protect expression on matters of public interest

Also Section 137 of Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43

CBC July 28/17 As it Happens “How an Ontario mom fended off a $120K libel lawsuit over her Facebook posts” fended-off-a-120k-libel-lawsuit-over-her-facebook-posts-1.4175496

July 26/17 Canadian lawyer blog “Stouffville woman awarded damages in SLAPP case” by Jennnifer Brown case.html

United Soils Mgt Ltd v Katie Mohammed

July 16/17 ToStar “ Court dismisses company’s libel lawsuit against teacher over Facebook postings. When Katie Mohammed turned to Facebook to air concerns about her community — as millions of people do every day — she didn’t think she’d ever be sued for libel, and become the centre of a precedent-setting case in Ontario’s laws protecting speech in the public interest.” over-facebook-postings.html

*** The (condo & marina development) Ontario OMB dispute that finally prodded the Province to enact some sort of obstacle to SLAPP gagging of dissent.

But what's the meaning of "public interest" ( triggering comment ) ?

And what's the boundary between gagging dissent and legitimate suing for genuine defamation ?

Big Bay Point Approval ( OM : After beating local resident opposition at OMB to its $ 1B ( timeshare ) condos & marina project at Lake Simcoe, Geranium Corp’s subsidiary KIMVAR enterprises pursued opponents for $ 3.2 M at OMB in 2007.

Clayton Ruby for the critics persuaded OMB however not to allow the further retaliation. Ultimately $ 150 M was reportedly sought by Geranium against the opposers in various legal forums.

"Influentials” successfuly pushed Province to introduce an anti-SLAPP Bill). All claims reported now settled . . .

* *

CROSS REFERENCE Jan 5/18 : Is there a MANAGEMENT DUTY to restrain etc . . . ?
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
contact webmaster