|
Canadian defamation law refers to defamation law as it stands in both common law and civil law jurisdictions in Canada. As with most Commonwealth jurisdictions, Canada follows English law on defamation issues (except in the province of Quebec where private law is derived from French civil law). ==Common-law provinces== At common law, defamation covers any communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public.〔''Murphy v. LaMarsh'' (1970), 73 W.W.R. 114〕 The perspective measuring the esteem is highly contextual, and depends on the view of the potential audience of the communication and their degree of background knowledge. Probably true statements are not excluded, nor are political opinions unless explicitly stated as such. Intent is always presumed, and it is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to defame. Where a communication is expressing a fact, it can still be found defamatory through innuendo suggested by the juxtaposition of the text or picture next to other pictures and words. Broadly, Canadians can be held liable by English-Canadian courts for comments on public affairs, about public figures, which are factually true, and which are broadly believed. They cannot be held liable for opinion, inference, hyperlinking without explicit agreement with the content, reportage when this is based on honest research and journalistic ethics. Plaintiffs need not prove falsity, malice or damages. Politicians can, and do, sue including during elections for political advantage 〔(【引用サイトリンク】author = David A. Potts )〕 or to silence critics or accusers. Evidence can be gathered by spies representing themselves falsely in private conversations. Defendants, once accused, are prima facie liable until they prove themselves innocent (reverse onus). Anonymous persons can be exposed for political comment, even if they are vulnerable and reside in jurisdictions where retribution is likely. People may be sued from remote jurisdictions if publication can be proven in that remote jurisdiction, which can mean as few as one person seeing the words. By contrast, under English law, a substantial publication is required before a plaintiff can sue a defendant in an English court. Unlike Canada, the UK is also considering substantial reforms in order to ensure that judgements remain enforceable in the US 〔(【引用サイトリンク】UK Libel Reform and the US SPEECH Act: A View from Canada )〕〔(【引用サイトリンク】The US Speech Act puts pressure on UK libel tourism laws )〕〔(【引用サイトリンク】How the US SPEECH Act Will Affect Libel Tourism )〕 The parameters of English-Canadian defamation law have been described as arbitrary, capricious, absurd and otherwise illogical. Radical reforms to the common law of libel and tort of defamation were initiated in the United States and elsewhere in the Commonwealth after major court rulings expanded the definitions of qualified privilege, reportage, and outlined the public interest value of criticism of politicians and corporations. Calls to reform Canada's "antiquated libel laws"〔 began to appear in the 1990s, continuing to the present. In a 2006 commentary comparing Canadian laws with US and Commonwealth laws at that time, the situation was described thus: Accordingly, most pre-2006 commentary on defenses and tactics remains valid, although the more recent case law and constantly changing standards require defamation lawyers (on both sides) to study almost every recent case. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Canadian defamation law」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|