Appeal Court Rules Against Rafe Mair & CKNW

General Radio News and Comments, Satellite & Internet Radio and LPFM

Postby kat » Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:27 am

Appeal Court rules former radio talk-show host's comments to be defamatory
The Vancouver Sun
Wed 14 Jun 2006
Page: B2
Section: WestCoast News
Byline: Neal Hall
Column: News Update
Dateline: VANCOUVER
Source: Vancouver Sun

VANCOUVER - Comments made by former CKNW radio talk-show host Rafe Mair almost seven years ago were defamatory and he didn't have a defence of fair comment, the B.C. Court of Appeal has ruled in overturning a lower court decision.

In a unanimous decision released Tuesday, the appeal court found Mair and WIC Radio Ltd., then parent company of the Vancouver radio station, should be held liable for defamatory comments made in 1999 against Kari Simpson, who at the time was the executive director of the Citizens Research Institute.

The decision by Appeal Court Justices Mary Southin, Jo-Anne Prowse and Allan Thackray found the defence of fair comment could not succeed, even though Mair held an honest belief in his comments.

The appeal court is sending the case back to the trial judge, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Marvyn Koenigsberg, to assess damages and court costs against the defendants.

The lower court dismissed Simpson's libel lawsuit in 2004, allowing the defence of fair comment and allowing Mair's libel counterclaim over an article posted on the Citizens' Research Institute website, which contained defamatory comments about Mair, who was awarded $100 in damages. The article was not written by Simpson.

Mair, a former Social Credit cabinet minister, made the defamatory comments Oct. 25, 1999 on CKNW during an editorial about Simpson, a Christian family values advocate.

Mair had taken issue with Simpson publicly supporting a Surrey school board decision to ban three books depicting same-sex parents.

During the editorial, Mair slammed Simpson and made allusions to skinheads, Adolf Hitler and the Ku Klux Klan, although he acknowledged Simpson did not condone violence.

At trial, Simpson's lawyer Lianne Potter argued that Mair wrongly implied that Simpson was preaching intolerance toward homosexuals, which was denied by Simpson.
The world has two kinds of people. Cat people and idiots.
User avatar
kat
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 532
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:36 pm
Location: Bellingham, WA

Postby Cliff Bashly Kinkade » Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:47 pm

This article only mentions allusions, does anyone know what the actual quotes were?

Or here's a better question would publishing or post the quotes be actionable?
nudeswithviews.com / where right is never wrong
Cliff Bashly Kinkade
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 11:54 am

Postby tuned » Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:06 pm

"actionable" is a word that the average person needs to get out of their vocabulary. It is a sign of our over lawyered world where all common sense has flown out the window. Pretty much anything anyone says or does is "actionable" but the reality is that in 99.9% of cases it's not worth the effort. Canadian law requires that damages need to be quantified and the onus is on the litigant to do so. Unlike the United States where ridiculous punitive damages are awarded the same is not true in Canada. Even though Rafe lost the case it is unlikely that Ms. Simpson will be awarded any great sum.
User avatar
tuned
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 6:06 pm

Postby Cliff Bashly Kinkade » Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:31 pm

Point taken. And you're absolutely in your Newtonian description of what constitutes action/reaction. It was just an easier word to use than say litigatableitude.

However, the Canadian legal system, while far behind the US system, has shown itself to be capable of extreme payouts at times.

Did Rafe call this woman a Nazi, or did he allude to the idea that her ideas were nazi-like?
nudeswithviews.com / where right is never wrong
Cliff Bashly Kinkade
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 11:54 am

Postby tuned » Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:11 pm

Rafe is a lawyer so he probably thought he was straddling "the line" but according to the BC Supreme Court he may have gone over it. I'm sure Rafe was comparing her actions to those that took place in Nazi Germany etc. Probably a little harsh under the circumstances but free speech can get ugly sometimes. Canadian libel and slander law is very much biased in favour of the media. Unless someone can prove malicious intent and show ACTUAL damages it is very difficult to extract much cold, hard cash.
User avatar
tuned
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 6:06 pm


Return to General Radio News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 169 guests