Ontario Court of Appeals ruling - Baglow v. Fourniers

[Connie Fournier]

http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2 ... CA0407.htm

[wildernessvoice]

so WHAT DOES THIS MEAN:

Disposition

[39] For the foregoing reasons, I would allow the appeal, set aside the order below, and direct that the action proceed to trial.

[40] The appellant is entitled to his costs of the appeal, fixed in the total amount of $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes.

[41] Costs below were fixed in the amount of $6,500 in favour of the respondents. I see no reason why the appellant should not be entitled to the costs below in the same amount.

[Red Green]

That blows.....

[Connie Fournier]

We lost. We have to have a full trial, and we have to pay his costs.

[Julian]

We lost. We have to have a full trial, and we have to pay his costs.

I suspected this sort of treachery. He outs himself, then sues for defamation and the court agrees that you are liable.

Only in Kanada you say?

[Red Green]

We lost. We have to have a full trial, and we have to pay his costs.

Hopefully you guys will win at trial with a jury.

[Julian]

We lost. We have to have a full trial, and we have to pay his costs.

Appeal, he did.

[wildernessvoice]

..so new out of the box court decisions are needed??/

[29] These issues have not been addressed in the jurisprudence in any significant way. The responses may have far-reaching implications. They are best crafted on the basis of a full record after a trial – at least until the law evolves and crystallizes to a certain point – in my view. A trial will permit these important conclusions to be formulated on the basis of a record informed by the examination and cross-examination of witnesses and quite possibly with the assistance of expert evidence to provide the court – whose members are perhaps not always the most up-to-date in matters involving the blogosphere – with insight into how the internet blogging world functions and what may or may not be the expectations and sensibilities of those who engage in such discourse in the particular context in which that discourse occurs.

[goldhound]

[wildernessvoice]

You guys need to start a Ron Paul type MONEY BOMB and you need to start it now.

[goldhound]

Would Ezra be interested in this case?

[Julian]

:shock:

It means that Connie and Mark are the test case, at their own expense, so that this judge can get a basis for future rulings. Apparently the cut and dried, simple straight forwardness of this issue is irrelevant for someone who has a curiosity about what "might" come of it. Awarding costs is absurd in the xtreme and is definitely punitive when no punishment is called for!!!

The judiciary is notoriously liebral and far left of center ... in a totally unbiased and immensely fair manner of course. As long ans their serenity isn't compromised I assume.

[Red Green]

Hopefully you guys will prevail and end up with a landmark decision that PEOPLE CAN'T GO ON A FORUM AND OUT THEMSELVES IN ORDER TO PROFIT FROM IT! Holy shit, do we really need 12 people to make that decision!

[wildernessvoice]

Would Ezra be interested in this case?

"These issues have not been addressed in the jurisprudence in any significant way. The responses may have far-reaching implications."

Are they issues far-reaching enough that many interested parties would want to be involved??

[goldhound]

Would Ezra be interested in this case?

"These issues have not been addressed in the jurisprudence in any significant way. The responses may have far-reaching implications."

Are they issues far-reaching enough that many interested parties would want to be involved??

That was my point.