Last week, lawyers for Toronto Star reporter Daniel Dale issued a libel notice that was served on the Toronto mayor as well as ZoomerMedia Inc. and Vision TV.
Under Ontario law, such a notice must be issued before an actual lawsuit for defamation can be commenced. The defendants in a libel or slander action must be given the opportunity to retract the statements alleged to be defamatory.
The action stems from an interview the mayor gave to Conrad Black on Vision TV, owned by ZoomerMedia Inc. The conversation in question refers to a night in May 2012 when Ford confronted the Toronto Star reporter near his home. According to Ford, a neighbour called him and told him someone was looking over the fence to his property. Ford later went up to the man who turned out to be Dale.
Ford told Black he was concerned someone was looking over his fence and taking pictures. His major concern was he has small children and thought the man was taking pictures of his kids. The mayor also said there is a word for someone who takes pictures of young children but specifically refused to name the word.
Dale denies he was looking over the fence and a police examination of the reporter’s equipment revealed no pictures were taken of Ford’s property that night.
The lawsuit claims that Ford implied the Toronto Star reporter is a pedophile that was interested in taking pictures of the mayor’s two young children.
The purpose of defamation law is not to protect hurt feelings or to compensate people who feel they have been insulted or slighted in some way. It is to compensate those who have suffered damage to their “reputation” by the remarks of another person. The loss of a person’s reputation is central to an action for defamation.
Although Ford did not actually use the word “pedophile”, it will be open to the trier of fact during a trial to find that is what he meant. Although it is possible he may have meant other words such as “stalker” or “lurker,” it is open to find the word “pedophile” as one that people would be most hesitant to use.
It is also not clear, because Ford is not the clearest speaker in the world, at what point he thought the person outside his property was there to take pictures of his kids. It is not clear that after learning the man outside his home was Dale, he thought the Toronto Star reporter was there to take pictures of his children.
But assume that the court does in fact find Ford meant pedophile when he described Dale to Black. What “loss of reputation” did the reporter suffer?
When someone is erroneously described as a pedophile, it is not unusual for them to lose their jobs. Dale not only still has his job but is continuing in his role as municipal affairs reporter, ensuring future contact with the man he said wronged him.
During normal times, very few people pay any attention to what goes on in their municipal governments. Many people undoubtedly never heard of Daniel Dale despite his position with a major Toronto newspaper. Much as the current Ford saga went around the world, Dale has a much higher profile both in and outside of Toronto than he had before the mayor’s comments. If there really was justice, Dale should be required to pay Ford for having raised his profile as a journalist.
What about Dale’s personal reputation? Are members of his family lying awake nights wondering if their boy has a sexual interest in children? Are his neighbours grabbing their children and dragging them across the street when they see Dale approach? Of course not. The reality is no one really thinks Dale is a pedophile because of something Ford said. No one actually believes the journalist is a pedophile based upon what Ford implied.
A principle that comes into play in assessing damages for defamation is “compounding the defamation.” This happens when the person who claims to be defamed encourages others to repeat the defamation. The libel notice pointed out, correctly, because of the public interest in Ford, the defamatory statement was going to be repeated in the media and it was.
But even the Toronto Star, the victim’s employer, is using the word. Editor Michael Cooke can’t seem to use the “p” word enough. And Dale himself wrote about the Black interview of Ford, using the word that Ford himself never uttered—pedophile.
This is not the action of a man who genuinely feels his reputation has been damaged. He’s not worried people now think he’s a pedophile—he’s just angry as all Ford haters are.
Among its many whines, the Toronto Star writes a lot about how people, mainly low income people, have difficulty accessing the justice system. One reason for this is that the courts are overcrowded. It seems ironic, or maybe not, that the newspaper and Dale are willing to further clog the judicial system with a defamation case when Dale’s reputation was never damaged by anything Ford said or implied.
The reality is the defamation suit is nothing more than a continuation of the attempt by Ford’s enemies, led by the Toronto Star, to remove the duly elected mayor from office. The courts are being used in their continued war on Ford.
