| My Legal Diary | Shahram Tabe / Bijan Ahamdi

دادگاه مانند شمشیر بی دسته ای میماند که رجوع به آن هم تلخی و هم شیرینی به همراه دارد.
آخر کارهم، همه بازنده میباشند، جز آنهاییکه آموختند و آموخته های خود را بکار خواهند گرفت.

از طرفی جای تاسف دارد که در رابطه با اموری که به منافع جمعی مربوط میگردند،
میبایست به جایی برسیم که با تمام دردسرها، زمانبری، و هزینه های سنگینش به دادگاه متوسل گردیم.
از طرفی هم رفتن به دادگاه آنقدر آموزنده است که اجرش به زجرش بیارزد. فقط از این طریق است که میتوان به ماهییت قانونمند یک جامعه پی برد.

با پایان گیری دادگاه شکایت شهرام تابع محمدی علیه بیژن احمدی، مهران حسینی فرازمند، محسن خانیکی و مهدی صمدیان، تصمیم گرفتم که اطلاعات مربوط به دو دادگاه دیگری که به کامیونیتی مربوط میشوند را در این سایت جمع آوری کنم. به دنبال راهی باشم تا بتوانیم از طریق بررسی آنچه اتفاق افتاد و تفسیر رای قاضی توسط یک حقوق دادن، بیاموزیم و آموخته های خود را در فعالیت های اجتماعی بکار بگیریم.

با تشکر و با امید همکاری کسانی که بصورت مستقیم در این جریانات دخالت داشته اند.

ضمنن از حقوق دانان کامیونیتی دعوت میکنم که ما را در این مسیر یاری دهند.

Like an unhandled sword, the court brings both bitterness and sweetness. In matters of collective interest, it is regrettable to reach the point to have to go to court with all its hassles, time consumption, and high costs. Nevertheless, the informative aspect makes it worth the complications, offering insight into the legal nature of society.

Concluding Shahram Tabe Mohammadi's lawsuit against Bijan Ahmadi, Mehran Hosseini Farazmand, Mohsen Khaniki, and Mehdi Samadian, I aim to gather information on two other community-related court cases. I seek a path where, through reviewing and interpreting judges' decisions with the help of lawyers, we can apply these lessons to social activities.

Appreciation to those directly involved and an invitation to community lawyers for their valuable assistance in this endeavour.

رای قاضی دادگاه
Deputy Judge O. Kahane-Rapport

Conclusion:
[116] For the reasons stated above I find that:
a. The Impugned Statements in Articles 1 & 2 were defamatory.
b. The Defendants established the defence of fair comments which was not defeated by the allegation of malice.
c. The Defendants failed to establish the defence of truth or justification and qualified privilege.
[117] Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.
[118] If the parties cannot agree on costs they may each provide this Court with their position on costs in writing - limited to two (2) pages each. Costs

Released: January 12, 2024

[۱۱۶] به دلایلی که در بالا ذکر شد، متوجه شدم که:

آ. اظهارات مورد اعتراض در مواد ۱ و ۲ تهمت آمیز بود.

ب متهمان دفاع از اظهارنظرهای منصفانه را ایجاد کردند که ادعای سوء نیت را رد میکند.

ج. متهمان موفق نشدند که دفاع از حقیقت یا توجیه و امتیاز واجد شرایط را ایجاد کنند.

[۱۱۷] بر این اساس، ادعای شاکی رد میشود.

[۱۱۸] اگر طرفین نتوانند در مورد هزینه ها به توافق برسند، هر یک می توانند موضع خود را در مورد هزینه ها به صورت کتبی به دادگاه ارائه دهند - هر هزینه محدود به دو (۲) صفحه.

TRUTH. is an absolute defense against defamation. A true statement cannot be actionable—no one is entitled to an undeserved good reputation. However, it can be very difficult to prove that a statement is true in a court of law through admissible evidence.

Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are lawsuits that censor, intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defence until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

FAIR COMMENT is often used for editorials and criticism, but can also cover any broadcasts or published statements of opinion and interpretation on matters of public interest. To be defensible as fair comment, the statement must express an opinion that someone could honestly hold without malice or hidden motive. It must also be based on true facts that are presented in the same story or are generally known.

RESPONSIBLE COMMUNICATION was established in 2009 to allow the publication of defamatory statements on matters of public interest, even if they can’t be proven as true. The defence was created to avoid “libel chill.” To use this defence, the defendant (e.g., writer, publisher, broadcaster) must be able to show diligence in the effort to verify the defamatory information before publication and at least an attempt to include the other side’s views.

Publishing a Hyperlink to defamatory material does not make one liable for defamation. The ruling helped increase protection for journalists.

Understanding Canadian Defamation Law

Defamation involves untruths that, when told and spread, may injure a person's reputation and thereby cause harm to employment, relationships, friendships, and even one's own confidence, self-esteem, and trust of others. For these reasons, the law bears heavily upon persons who speak falsely about other persons. Defamation can arise from one of two methods. Libel involves disparagement by written words and slander involves disparagement by spoken words. In Ontario, the common law as well as the Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12 apply to legal cases involving defamation.

There are a number of legal defenses against defamation:

1. You can claim that the statement was true; a true statement cannot be defamatory.

2. You can claim “absolute privilege,” which means that the communication was made in a venue where people ought to have absolute privilege to speak freely; this includes Parliament or giving evidence in a trial.

3. You can claim “qualified privilege,” which means that the communication was given in a non-malicious and well-intentioned context and therefore ought to be excused: for example, giving an honest but negative reference for a former employee.

4. You can claim “fair comment,” which means that your statement was a non-malicious opinion about a matter of public interest: for example, an editorial in a newspaper about a politician.

5. You can claim “responsible communication on matters of public importance,” which allows journalists to report false allegations if the news is urgent and of public importance, and if the journalist made an effort to verify the information. Even if the statement is false, the public has an interest in this type of discussion being legally permissible.

One must bear in mind that not all untrue or unflattering words are defamatory. In a defamation case, the context of the situation in which the words were passed in addition to the words themselves are considered.

DEFAMATION, LIBEL AND SLANDER: WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS TO FREE EXPRESSION?

Fair Comment Malice Defamation Absolute Privilege

گزارش آی سی ژورنال

مقاله شهرام تابع محمدی در روزنه

Anoosh S. (Explanatory Comment)

Thanks for the detailed report, Shahram Jan. I have some points that may be of use to anyone wanting to learn more about what happened.

My first point relates to the accuracy of keeping community records. The disbursements you refer to as penalty, are one portion of the total amount ordered by the judge. As you may know, the CJA stipulates that a judge may order 15 percent of the entire amount sought in damages (in this case 15 percent of 25k) plus any reasonable disbursements incurred by the defendants. In exceptional circumstances, a judge may order 2x in fees and full disbursements. In this case, the judge held that your conduct was respectful and reasonable and that you were not after financial gain. Those factors weighed in your favour and so she ordered the minimum amount recoverable. The judge's order on costs explicitly mentioned all that in her decision.

She also noted that the defendants had only made out one of the defences available to them and failed on all other available defences. The judge disagreed with the defendants' calculation of their costs (I had similar doubts) and I suppose was as surprised to learn that the defendants had spent nearly six figures to mount up a defence. The judge noted that the defendants were charged by their counsel for even trivial matters like setting a trial date, which falls on the plaintiff. For those of you who don't know, setting a trial date is an email to the court registrar.

I am adding all this because if the defendants had chose to ignore the court proceedings and not file a defence, they would have been liable for $25,000 (the maximum amount). The fact that they ended up spending nearly four times that amount, resulting in a significantly worse financial outcome, raises questions that they need to address.

You are not responsible for their financial misjudgments as some have asserted. Overall, I am happy to have assisted you Pro Bono and witnessed my co-counsel charge their half rate. I am happy our financial prudence made a difference despite the imbalanced dynamics relating to resources.

I am relieved to know that most of what you wanted to get out was mentioned in her honour's decision. Perhaps we could have accomplished more, but with litigation, there is always a risk of dealing with an emotional party. If a party is spending several times more than the amount they're facing in potential damages, effectively litigating the matter becomes moot.

Why go to court, if someone is going to pay 3-4x their damages as fees to put up a defence. I thank everyone following the case and invite all those interested to read the actual decision. If you hear or read someone say that the decision stands for the idea that the defamatory articles stand to be "true" in their ordinary meaning, kindly take that assertion with a grain of salt and consider the proponent to be biased or not very knowledgeable about what happened.