Jump to content
The forums have been archived and are now read only. Years of great info saved for your reading pleasure. Thank you! Visit us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NakedInvestor/ ×
The Naked Investor Forums

Recommended Posts

Nope, no big surprise there.

 

Does anyone know if I can file a counter complaint for slander?

Doug,

 

Here are the rules on defamation in Canada (Does Not Apply to Quebec):

 

Defamation was well described in a 1970 British Columbia Court of Appeal decision called Murphy v. LaMarsh:

 

(Defamation is where) a shameful action is attributed to a man (he stole my purse), a shameful character (he is dishonest), a shameful course of action (he lives on the avails of prostitution), (or) a shameful condition (he has smallpox). Such words are considered defamatory because they tend to bring the man named into hatred, contempt or ridicule. The more modern definition (of defamation) is words tending to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.

 

The common law protects every person from harm to their reputation by false and derogatory remarks about their person, known as defamation. In addition, all Canadian provinces have libel/ slander legislation (defamation includes slander and libel, where slander is verbal defamation and libel is printed defamation). It is a tricky and slippery field of law, based on statutes, English common law and many defences. Defamation tort law protects your reputation, not your feelings.

 

The major points of defamation law in Canada are as follows:

 

1. Defamation is a "strict liability" tort. In other words, it does not matter if the defamation was intentional or the result of negligence. Defamatory material is presumed to be false and malicious. "Whatever a man publishes", according to one case, "he publishes at his peril."

2. Defamation must be a direct attack on an actual reputation, not an alleged reputation that a "victim" believes they deserve. A judge will assess the statement against the evidence of the victim's reputation in their community.

3. The remarks must be harmful (i.e. "defamatory") and this will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Some statements are clearly defamatory. Other statements would only be defamatory to the person targeted by the remarks. What may be a nonsensical or mildly offensive remark to one person may constitute serious defamation to another. The judge will consider the situation of the person defamed in assessing the claim of defamation.

4. The defamatory remark must be clearly aimed at the plaintiff. General, inflammatory remarks aimed at a large audience would not qualify as the remarks must be clearly pointed at a specific person.

5. The defamatory remarks must be somehow conveyed to a third party. Private defamation just between two parties causes no reputation damage to reputation because there are no other persons to be impacted by the remarks. With libel, the damage is presumed as it is published. With slander (verbal defamation), proof of repetition to other people is essential to the claim; damages have to be proven (there are four exceptions: the defamation imputes the commission of a crime, the unchaste status of a woman, a "loathsome disease", or a professional incompetence).

 

There are a number of special defences available against defamation:

 

A. The "defamatory" remark was basically accurate.

B. The plaintiff agreed with the defamatory remarks. For example, if the plaintiff subsequently publishes the remarks, they would be hard pressed to succeed in a defamation claim.

C. Some special privileges exist for remarks made in certain venues such as in a court room during trial or in a legislative assembly or one of its committees. A privilege against defamation claims also exists for judicial or legislative reports.

D. There is what is known as a "qualified privilege" where remarks that may otherwise be construed as being "defamatory", were conveyed to a third party non-maliciously and for an honest and well-motivated reason. An example would be giving a negative but honest job reference. The criteria for this defence are: defamation was incidental to the protection of an interest or discharge of a duty and the remarks were given to a person who had an interest in receiving the information. In assessing this defence, judges will ask themselves whether a reasonably intelligent person would have given the information to the person to whom it was conveyed.

E. Citizens are entitled to make "fair comment" on matters of public interest without fear of defamation claims. A good example of this is a letter to the editor on a matter of public concern. The author of the remarks may even go so far as to presume motives on the part of the person who's actions are being criticized provided only that the imputation of motives is reasonable under the circumstances. The rule of thumb is that the fair comment must reflect an honestly held opinion based on proven fact and not motivated by malice. It should be noted, however, that some provinces have enacted laws which give their citizens varying rights to "fair comment."

 

Situations which involve racial or hate defamation might find a more expeditious and cost-effective recourse through human rights legislation rather than defamation.

 

You should also be aware that most provinces have implemented very short limitation periods with regards to alleged defamation appearing in newspapers or broadcast (as short as six weeks in some cases) so time may be of the essence.

 

 

Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I brought this post back to see if maybe Doug swings-by he might be able to mention the outcome of the Commission's investigation.

 

I have for the past few months been hounded by mt states Attorney General from a disgruntaled t/b in an SLO. They found nothing (good agreements) and have passed it on to my state's Real Estate Commission to see if I am brokering with out a license. The Commission is requesting the agreements between me and the seller and also want the seller's contact information. At this point I have put the breaks on and have placed a call into an attorney.

 

Just curious how Doug's investigation ended up, or if anyone has any additional experience going through this. Some very good comments in this post.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, the investigation just fizzled out. Under my attorney's direction I sent them a very brief letter stating that I was purchasing property for my own private investment and not brokering on anyone's behalf. I did not send them the documents they requested and offered no further explanation of what I was doing or with whom. That was the last I heard from them.

 

Your situation is a bit different. For me the investigation was launched by a jealous Realtor. For you they've got the added incentive of appearing to be "fighting for the rights of the downtrodden" since it's a T/B you dealt with who kicked things off. So I would be a bit more cautious and make sure you dot every i and cross every t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, first, I see no reason why you should send copies of your contracts and agreements to the Real Estate Commission. You're not a Realtor. What jurisdiction do they have over you? Coupled with the fact that the AG's office forwarded this to the REC tells me the AG found nothing illegal, improper or wrong. You're on solid footing, I'm sure.

That said, you will need your attorney to cover you back, just to play it safe. Have him reply to the REC and tell them in no uncertain terms they are out of bounds with this witch hunt. I'd bet that puts an end to this nonsense. It'll cost you a few bucks and some aggravation, but it's the cost of doing business on occasion. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks MC & Doug for the replies.

 

I just got off the phone with the attorney and that is exactly what he said MC. I sending my paper over to the attorney this afternoon and let him take it from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve, first, I see no reason why you should send copies of your contracts and agreements to the Real Estate Commission. You're not a Realtor. What jurisdiction do they have over you? Coupled with the fact that the AG's office forwarded this to the REC tells me the AG found nothing illegal, improper or wrong. You're on solid footing, I'm sure.

That said, you will need your attorney to cover you back, just to play it safe. Have him reply to the REC and tell them in no uncertain terms they are out of bounds with this witch hunt. I'd bet that puts an end to this nonsense. It'll cost you a few bucks and some aggravation, but it's the cost of doing business on occasion. <_<

 

Hi MC:

 

I haven't been around lately but was interested in this conversation coming back to light. This area was always a concern for me. My thinking always was you arent ever selling the property your assigning the option to purchase the property. How in the world is a agent going to win the Brokering Clause when the house isn't selling until later on in the contract if at all? Maybe I just aint seeing something here...

 

Currently I have filed a lawsuit against Elmira College on the daughters behalf in New York State Supreme Court. . And its not nice, its very expensive and I am determine to win my cause against the school come hell or high water. Its amazing what I learned over the pass 6 months about Private Colleges, the law and civil rights and due process. Some schools are free to take these basic rights away from all students when attending a Private College beleive it or not. My case is to be heard on May16th so we will see I am up against some big boys with deep pockets. Will need to transact lots of homes for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks MC & Doug for the replies.

 

I just got off the phone with the attorney and that is exactly what he said MC. I sending my paper over to the attorney this afternoon and let him take it from there.

Then don't pay him. . .pay me <_< I'm not surprised to hear that, Steve. One letter from your attorney ought to put this issue to rest.

 

 

Hi MC:

 

I haven't been around lately but was interested in this conversation coming back to light. This area was always a concern for me. My thinking always was you arent ever selling the property your assigning the option to purchase the property. How in the world is a agent going to win the Brokering Clause when the house isn't selling until later on in the contract if at all? Maybe I just aint seeing something here...

 

Currently I have filed a lawsuit against Elmira College on the daughters behalf in New York State Supreme Court. . And its not nice, its very expensive and I am determine to win my cause against the school come hell or high water. Its amazing what I learned over the pass 6 months about Private Colleges, the law and civil rights and due process. Some schools are free to take these basic rights away from all students when attending a Private College beleive it or not. My case is to be heard on May16th so we will see I am up against some big boys with deep pockets. Will need to transact lots of homes for this.

Craig, your vision is just fine. It's the occasional disgruntled Realtor who has no understanding of what we do and how we do it. It's been said here and many other places, as well. We are principals in the deals we do. We are not Brokering without a license. It couldn't be more obvious. Yet, we have to go through this nonsense every so often. Like I said above, it's the cost of doing business.

If I may ask, what is your beef with Elmira College? If it's none of my damn business, just say so :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have for the past few months been hounded by mt state's Attorney General from a disgruntaled t/b in an SLO. They found nothing (good agreements) and have passed it on to my state's Real Estate Commission to see if I am brokering with out a license. The Commission is requesting the agreements between me and the seller and also want the seller's contact information. At this point I have put the breaks on and have placed a call into an attorney.
Wanted to follow up as I have received a letter back from the my state's Attorney General and Real Estate Commission. And I quote:

 

"Thank you for your letter responding to our inquiry concerning this matter. Your responce was satisfactory, and I am closing my file on the complaint." "Your cooperation is appreciated"

 

Salute!! :D Good Naked Investor Agreements!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprised to read that, Steve. Congratulations are in order, nonetheless! :D

Perhaps you're feeling devious and want to forward a copy of said letter to your tenant/buyer friends who started all this nonsense?? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you say lawsuit! :angry:

 

Naaa. This has turned out to be a good exercise. There was a business privilege license I discovered I needed for one city and also it help me polish my marketing to sellers and tenant/buyers to better explain my position in the deal. Disclosure is everything. If you don't mind I am going to attach a disclosure I now use with tenant/buyers. No t/b has balked at it so far.

 

 

DISCLOSURE_TB.doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's for sure Doug. It's nice to be able to say been there done that.

 

Reading through this past thread was helpful in keeping me from 'sweat'n it' when big brother was knocking at the door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...