Originally Posted by Momofsheldon  Hello,
I am a repeated "customer" of Cindy's and am appalled by your post. While I am very sorry at the loss of your puppy, actively defaming a business and wonderful person is not the way to grieve.
A little background on defamation for you:
A defamatory statement made in writing is libel, and when made verbally, is slander. The Defamation Act (Alberta) does not differentiate between libel or slander. This means if defamation is proven, then damages are presumed, regardless if they are libel or slander (see section 2(s) of the Act). This means a person does not need to show they suffered a monetary loss from the defamatory statements - loss is assumed and once defamation is proven, damages are owed.
To establish defamation, the onus is on the Plaintiff to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the elements of defamation. To establish a defamation claim, the Plaintiff must prove:
1) That the impugned words were defamatory, in the sense that they would tend to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person;
2) That the words spoken or written referred to the plaintiff, and
3) That the words were published, meaning that they were communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff.
The test is an objective one. The test, in other words, is not whether the words impute
negative qualities to the plaintiff, but whether in the factual circumstances of the case, the public would think less of the plaintiff as a result of the comment.
Defamation can be established despite the fact that the words used to defame the individual did not express a conclusion.
Merely framing a defamatory statement in the form of a question will not provide protection from liability. Whether words have a defamatory meaning is determined from the "ordinary meaning" of the published words themselves. Ordinary meaning includes any implied, inferential or indirect meaning that a reasonable person would draw from the words.
If the plaintiff can establish that defamatory words have been published or broadcast which tend to lower the plaintiff’’ s reputation, or which expose the plaintiff to hatred, contempt or ridicule, a prima facie cause of action in defamation arises and the publication will attract liability, unless a defence can be established.
If the statement is shown to be true then it acts as a complete defense to the action. The defendant must prove the truth of all material statements made.
It is the imputation contained in the words that must be justified, not the literal truth of the words. Examples of how to show the truth of all your allegations published on the internet: showing you purchased a puppy from Cindy (including proof of payment); showing your puppy was regularly checked by a vet and screened for a liver shunt; showing that your puppy, during its regular check ups showed no signs of a liver shunt (and that you received the proper blood work to screen for such disease - your negligence is not someone else's problem); showing your puppy died from a liver shunt; showing Cindy was at fault and could have prevented it; showing you contacted Cindy (i.e. phone records which will show you called her and the length of the converation recorded - any phone provider has this info and is sent to you month on your bill); etc. etc. etc.
Given the absences of any proof on your part, aside from your posts, I have a difficult time believing in the accuracy and truthfulness of your post. I would encourage any readers to criticially think about posts made like this which contain strong and serious allegations in them, which fail to provide firm evidence supporting their remarks.
Please consider removing the post. There are many consequences that can flow from incorrect information intended to defame another individual. Your anonymity will only take you so far in this day and age.
For what it is worth to people stumbling upon this post - I do not, for a second, believe a single word. I know Cindy and have multiple fur babies from her, which are amazingly healthy, strong, well-mannered, and hilarious! I received full health disclosure of all dogs involved and from the vet. I am unaware of anyone who has had an issue with Cindy or her dogs. Cindy always answers my calls, emails, no matter why I am calling. Cindy, in my opinion, and based on my experiences, on all accounts, is wonderful breeder.
Shame on you.
Disclaimer - this post is not intended as legal advice nor does the writer represent any of the involved parties nor have any parties engaged the writer to respond on their behalf. |