1.缘起
我在约克论坛、枫下论坛批评大统华，网友们提醒我注意两点：
一是可能违反NDA或者雇主的社交媒体政策。这一点我此前分享的文章分析得很好，这里不再说了。
二是可能构成对大统华的defamation。对此，我专门去图书馆借了如图的加拿大侵权法，并专门学习了chapter 15：Defamation.这篇读书笔记，提到的所有资料，基本上都来自于这一部分，包括相关的案例，我没有读原文，读的也是这本书里面的摘录。
另外，因为我在安省，所以更多关注的也是安省的情况。
2.在defamation中需要考量的两种价值，对于defamation的认定，以及给与被告辩护，都是基于对这两种价值的考量。
2.1 freedom of expression
Irwin Toy Ltd.v.Quebec(1989)S.C.R案中提出S.2(b) of the Charter has three core rationales, or purposes:
(1) democratic discourse; 没有言论自由，我们无法批评政府，无非批评政府机构及其工作人员的工作，就没有民主。
(2) truth-finding;
(3) self-fulfillment。
2.2 the reputation of the individual
个人的名誉，应当得到保护，尤其是律师、会计师这样的专业人员，其名誉甚至影响到其职业。对于公司来说，其名誉，影响到其销售的商品、提供的服务，具有相当大的经济价值，也需要得到保护。
3.区分libel和slander
安省对于defamation的立法，就是Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12。
3.1 libel主要是指含有defamatory meaning的书面的材料，包括writing, signs, pictures, statues, films，甚至是conduct。
3.2 slander主要是指口头的表示。
两者区分的实益是，slander需要证明存在damages，而libel不需要。
4、原告需要承担如下举证责任：
4.1 the material was defamatory。但是，如何认定defamatory呢？
Wilson C.J.S.C.在Murphy LaMarsh ET AL.(1971)中这样说的：Such words are considered defamatory because they tend to bring the named, according to the classic definition, into hatred, contempt or ridicule. The more modern definition, given by Lord Atkin…to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.
4.2 the material referred to the plaintiff
能否认定为可能指向原告，是法律问题，由法官决定。如果回答是肯定的，则对于一个reasonable people，能否认定是指向原告的，则是一个事实问题，由jury决定。
4.3 the material must be published
在大部分案子中，不构成问题。但是，在极端案例中，这是个问题。Mcnichol v.Grandy （1932）S,C,R.695,(1932)1 D.L.R.225中，被告和原告在原告的药店吵架，当时屋内只有他们俩人，被告骂原告。但是，原告的一个员工，去隔壁房间换衣服，听到吵架声音，并通过房间的一个小孔偷听到了整个对话。结果，法院认为构成published。
5.被告的抗辩
5.1 truth:举证责任在被告。For in practice, it acts not only as a serious deterrent against dissemination of falsehood but…constitutes also a powerful brake on public debate and the flow of information by underscoring the wisdom of caution and self-censorship.
5.2 absolute privilege
这种情况下，要绝对考虑言论自由，即使符合defamation的其他条件，也不需要承担责任。
the acts of high executive officers in the performance of their official duties. It applies to statements made during parliamentary proceedings and judicial proceeding also applies to communications between spouses.
当然政治家、法官，并不是完全不需要承担责任，需要承担选举失败、违反法官操守的责任，只是不承担defamation的责任。
5.3 qualified privilege
和前面不一样的是，如果表达人存在恶意（malice），就要承担责任。举证的顺序是，被告举证属于qualified privilege，然后原告举证存在malice。
In general terms, the protection of a qualified privilege extends to publications“fairly made by a person in the discharge of some public or private duty, whether legal moral, or in the conduct of his own affairs, in matters where his interest is concerned。”
The fundamental basis of all occasions of qualified privilege is the notion that the publisher had an interest or duty to convey the material to a person who had a reciprocal interest or duty to receive it.
主要可以分为如下四种情况“
（1）Protection of one’s own interest
比如，Pleau v. Simpsons-sears Ltd.（1976）中，原告钱包丢了，开始有伪造他签名的签支票出现。被告在收银处贴了个notice告知其员工，如果有原告名字的支票出现，就留住该持票人，并且叫保安。该通知，顾客也能看到。原告的朋友看到了，告知原告。原告起诉，陪审团认定没有构成defamation，上诉法院也认可。
（2）common interest or mutual concern
在Bereman v.Power publishing Co. supreme court of Colorado. (1933).所涉及到的是，在州工会出版物上的一篇文章，指责原告和其他两个人，从该市唯一的一家工会洗衣厂招聘工会的traitor，并且让这些traitor招揽之前的顾客来光顾，但是不告诉这些顾客，他们是为没有工会的雇主工作。这篇文章说，原告和其他两个人，为了钱而出卖人格。判决认为，该文章发表在工会出版物上，受众是工会成员，为了双方共同利益，有权告知这些情况，构成qualified privilege。
（3）moral or legal duty to protect another’s interest
Courts are more inclined to find a qualified privilege where statements are made in response to specific inquiries than when they are volunteered. For example, if a previous employer gives a character reference regarding a discharged employee at the request of a prospective employer, the former employer is more likely to be protected than if volunteering the information. See Toogood v. Spying (1834)
An inquiry is not always required, however. Certain relationships generate a duty to inform even without any request to do so. For example, defamatory statements by a father to his daughter about a prospective husband are privileged because of his moral obligation as a father. See Bordeaux v. Jobs (1913)
(4) Public interest
5.4 responsible communication on a matter of public interest
Grant v. Torstar, supreme court of Canada (2009), McLachlin C.J.: I agree and would formulate the test as follows. First, the publication must be on a matter of public interest. Second, the defendant must show that publication was responsible, in that he or she was diligent in trying to verify the allegation, having regard to all the relevant circumstances
5.5 Fair comment
The comments cannot be presented so that they appear to be allegation of fact. The ordinary unprejudiced reader must take them to be comments based on facts for the defense to hold. See Clark v. Norton. (1910) Thus, if the “sting of the words complained of do not appear to be comment at all”, the defense will fail. Jones v. Bennett (1969). In other words, to say that someone did something dishonorable is a fact, whereas to say that someone did a particular thing and that was dishonorable is a statement of fact and a comment.
Unless that facts upon which the comment is based are true and undistorted, the comment cannot be “fair”. The truth of the facts, there, is essential, not to prove that the statements were justified, but that the comment was a fair one.
Although the comment must be fair, this does not necessarily mean that it must be reasonable. Even the unreasonable are allowed to express their views. The test for the jury is whether they might reasonably regard the opinion as one that no fair-minded person could possibly have promulgated. The jury must not substitute their own opinion on the subject. See McQuire v. Western Morning News Co. Ltd. (1903); Master v.Fox(1978), fair comment defense fails because no fair-minded person could draw the inference from the facts. In other words, as long as the comment represents a legitimate opinion honestly held, it will be protected.
:
