Originally posted on National Post | Full Comment:

[np_storybar title=”Excerpt from the judgment” link=””]
The issue is whether the words are defamatory of the plaintiff. To decide this issue, I must assume for the sake of analysis that the words were spoken about the plaintiff, despite my conclusion to the contrary….
The reasonable person, having read fairly all of the defendant’s assertions in the article in issue, both quoted statements and accurate paraphrasing, likely would have understood him to have said:

1. I sense or suspect corruption in Tuggs Inc.’s deal with the City
2. However, I’m unable to say that anyone did anything wrong
3. My sense or suspicion of corruption is based on the Tuggs deal having been considered by the city “in camera”
4. In camera meetings are where more corruption and skullduggery goes on than I’ve ever seen
5. However, I don’t know what actually took place

Point 2 is, in my view, what…

View original 978 more words

About these ads
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Post navigation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com. The Adventure Journal Theme.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,079 other followers

%d bloggers like this: