SLAPPed: BC Appellant Court Supports Fish Farmer Suit (and more)

"This is a SLAPP in the face," said the Defendant, Don Staniford. "This
shocking judgment will have a chilling effect on all campaigners speaking
out on environmental and social justice issues. The Norwegian Government,
as owners in the multinational Cermaq, have effectively abused the Canadian
courts to muzzle global criticism against salmon farming."


Cigarette 87 Free Speech

"Norwegian companies not only have a monopoly on salmon farming but this
judgment sends the signal that they also own the law," continued Staniford.
"The wide-ranging permanent injunction has huge implications for freedom of
speech and cannot be allowed to stand. Basic statements of fact and opinion
such as 'Wild Salmon Don't Do Drugs' and 'Friends Don't Let Friends Eat
Farmed Salmon' are now outlawed. Newspapers will now be banned from
reporting the facts: of how salmon farming kills sea lions; how salmon
farming kills lobsters and how salmon farming spreads infectious diseases.
Scientific journals will now have to re-write papers to comply with the
Draconian terms of the permanent injunction. I will fight this Norwegian
multinational all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada via an appeal. The
truth always wins out in the end!"


Don with stickers after lawsuit victory



To see the shocking scope of the permanent injunction - including a copy and
the 50+ statements now banned - please read "Censorship Like A Cancer Grows
ows-.html> "



The injunction was summarized in Cermaq's appeal as follows:


Injunction #1



The permanent injunction would not only apply
m-of-speech.html> to Don Staniford and the Global Alliance Against
Industrial Aquaculture but also to ANY person or company aware of the
injunction i.e. the general public and the media. On the last day of the
20-day trial in 2012, Cermaq's lawyers detailed the Draconian terms of the
injunction - referred to as the 'No Future Defamation Term':


Injunction #2

Injunction #3



Cermaq's heavy-handed lawyers at Fasken Martineau spelled out in black and
white what they consider to be the 'Defamatory Words' in their Amended
Notice of Civil Claim
uly-15-2011.pdf> (52 statements in total):


Defamatory Words #1

Defamatory Words #2

Defamatory Words #3

Defamatory Words #4

Defamatory Words #5

Anybody with knowledge of today's judgment must therefore remove any words
relating to the above!


SLAPP



Cermaq's Canadian subsidiary Mainstream Canada responded to the judgment via
a press release
ase-against-activist> (22 July):


Appeal Judgment #4 Mainstream PR
Read in full online here
ase-against-activist>



The Common Sense Canadian reported
tion-on-appeal> (22 July):


Appeal Judgment #5 CSC

Read in full online here
tion-on-appeal>







Read more on the 'Salmon Farming Kills
' lawsuit via:

* Judgment Day - 22 July!


* See You In Court! Tuesday (28 May) in the BC Court of Appeal!
the-bc-court-of-appeal-.html>
* Censorship Like A Cancer Grows
ows-.html>
* Norway Tightens Noose on Free Speech!
ee-speech.html>
* "Cermaq - see you in court (again)!
in-.html> "
* "Cermaq Like A Cancer Grows - The Sound of Cermaq's SLAPP
the-sound-of-cermaq.html> "
* "Norway
peech> 's Injunction Kills Free Speech!"
* "Gagging the Truth Becomes Mainstream
"
* "Closing Norway's Noose on Freedom of Speech
"
* "Cermaq's Clusterfuck
"





Online via:
http://donstaniford.typepad.com/my-blog/2013/07/slapp-in-the-face-of-freedom
-of-speech.html

Mainstream Canada v. Staniford
by 2013 BCCA 341 – 2013/07/22 Court of Appeal

The appellant sought general and punitive damages for allegedly defamatory comments made by the respondent in various publications, as well as a permanent injunction restraining him from publishing similar words and images in the future.

The trial judge found the defence of fair comment applied to the defamatory comments and dismissed the action.

In holding that the defence applied, the judge found that a determined reader could have located the facts upon which the comments were based.

Held: appeal allowed. The trial judge erred in finding the test for the defence of fair comment was satisfied.

The defamatory publications did not identify by a clear reference the facts upon which the comments were based that were contained in other documents.

The trial judge’s order dismissing the appellant’s claim is set aside, and the permanent injunction is granted.

As it is in the interests of justice for this Court to assess damages rather than order a new trial, the appellant is awarded general damages of $25,000 and punitive damages of $50,000.

The respondent is punished for his misconduct during the trial by awarding the appellant special costs of the action.

Posted Monday, July 22, 2013: