Case 4
University student Natasha hopes to change the world through her TikTok videos in
which she expresses her ideas. One of her supporters, nevertheless, warned that she
would face repercussions for her views. Natasha contacts you for help after finding out
that you took the business law course at the University of Lethbridge's Dhillon School of
Business. In this instance, Natasha's six remarks from her TikTok videos will be
examined to see if she could be held liable for defamation.
Defamation is a tort that occurs when one person makes a false statement that injures
the reputation of another person. The statement must be published or communicated to
a third party. There are two types of defamation: libel and slander. Libel refers to written
defamation, while slander refers to spoken defamation.
Statement a) Harvey Weinstein is a sexual predator and she hopes that he will never be
released from prison: This statement is likely to be seen as a matter of opinion, and as
such, Natasha would not be liable for defamation. The defense of truth is available in a
defamation suit, and a statement of opinion cannot be proven false.
Statement b) Fendi has really dropped the ball in its manufacturing of high-end fashion
items. The quality of its products is noticeably inferior compared to its competitors.
Further, it uses sweatshop labour and pays its workers very little. She recommended
that her followers avoid buying Fendi products. All these statements are false: These
statements could potentially lead to a defamation suit by Fendi against Natasha. In
order to prove defamation, the plaintiff must show that the defendant made a false
statement of fact that caused harm to the plaintiff's reputation. If Natasha's statements
are false, then Fendi could argue that they have caused harm to the company's
reputation. Natasha would need to prove the truth of her statements in order to avoid
liability.
Statement c: The last Black Panther movie had terrible sound editing,.Natasha does not
have potential liability for defamation for this statement. The statement is an opinion and
is protected under the right to freedom of speech. In order to prove defamation, the
statement must be false and must harm the reputation of a person or entity. In this case,
the statement is an opinion and does not harm the reputation of a person or entity.
Statement D: The Calgary Flames is a terrible hockey team and pays its players far
more than they are worth. Natasha has potential liability for defamation for this
statement. The statement is false and may harm the reputation of the Calgary Flames.
In order to prove defamation, Natasha must show that the statement was false and that
it was published or communicated to a third party.
Statement e) Rogers Wireless (a Canadian corporation) charges too much money for its
wireless services, provides poor coverage, and is too powerful for the good of
Canadians: These statements could potentially lead to a defamation suit by Rogers
Wireless against Natasha. In order to prove defamation, the plaintiff must show that the
defendant made a false statement of fact that caused harm to the plaintiff's reputation. If
Natasha's statements are false, then Rogers Wireless could argue that they have
caused harm to the company's reputation. Natasha would need to prove the truth of her
statements in order to avoid liability.
Statement f) Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has a rather partisan and uninformed view
of the government’s role in controlling the spread of COVID: This statement is likely to
be seen as a matter of opinion, and as such, Natasha would not be liable for
defamation. A statement of opinion cannot be proven false.
Advice for Natasha moving forward: Natasha should be careful about the statements
she makes on social media, as they can potentially lead to a defamation suit. She
should avoid making false statements of fact and consider the impact of her words on
the reputation of individuals and companies. She should also consider whether her
statements are based on facts that she can prove, or if they are simply opinions. If in
doubt, she should seek the advice of a lawyer before posting any controversial
statements online.
Case 5
Introduction:
In this case, the protagonist invested in a cannabis company named HighasaKite 2022
after getting a recommendation from his financial advisor Raymond James LLC and
discussing the investment with his friend Daisy. The protagonist's mother transferred
$10,000. into his account for the purpose of paying for his university needs. However,
the protagonist invested the funds in HighasaKite 2022, which was later suspended for
insider trading and the stock price plummeted, causing the protagonist to lose almost all
of the investment. The protagonist's mother learned the truth and is no longer her
favorite child.
a) The potential cause of action against Raymond James LLC would be for Negligence.
Negligence is defined as the failure to exercise reasonable care in performing a task
that has caused harm to another person. In order to establish the tort of negligence, the
following elements must be established: a duty of care, a breach of that duty of care,
that breach was the cause of the harm, and the harm was foreseeable. In this case,
Raymond James LLC, as a financial advisor, owed a duty of care to Daisy and other
clients to provide accurate and reliable information about potential investments. If the
financial advisor failed to exercise reasonable care and made a recommendation that
led to the loss of investment, there could be a breach of duty of care. Additionally, if it
can be established that the harm was foreseeable, then Raymond James LLC may be
held liable for negligence.
b) The potential cause of action against Daisy would be for Fraud. Fraud is defined as a
material representation made with knowledge of its falsity and with the intent to deceive
the recipient. The following elements must be established to prove fraud: a material
representation made by the defendant, the defendant knew it was false or made it
recklessly, the defendant intended to deceive the plaintiff, the plaintiff relied on the
representation, and the plaintiff suffered harm. In this case, if Daisy knew or recklessly
made false statements about the potential of Highasakite 2022, and if you relied on
those statements and invested based on that, then Daisy may be held liable for fraud.
c) The potential cause of action against you by your mother would be for Conversion.
Conversion is defined as the unauthorized and intentional use of another person’s
property as if it were your own. The following elements must be established to prove
conversion: the plaintiff had ownership or right to possession of the property, the
defendant intentionally interfered with the plaintiff's property, and the plaintiff suffered
harm as a result of the defendant's interference.In this case, if your mother transferred
the funds to you for the express and sole purpose of paying for your university needs
and you used the funds for a different purpose, your mother may be able to establish a
cause of action for conversion.
d) Raymond James LLC may have a defence of reliance on information provided by
others. In other words, they may argue that they made the recommendation based on
information provided by others, and they were not aware of the insider trading. Daisy
may also argue that they did not know the statements they made were false and that
the stock price plummeted due to unforeseen circumstances. You may argue that you
relied on the recommendation of the financial advisor and your friend, and you had no
reason to suspect that the investment would go wrong.
e) The outcome of these potential cases would depend on the evidence presented and
the strength of each party's argument. If the court finds that Raymond James LLC failed
to exercise reasonable care and made a recommendation that led to the loss of
investment, then they may be held liable for negligence. If it can be established that
Daisy knew or recklessly made false statements about the potential of HighasaKite
2022, then Daisy may be held liable for fraud. If your mother can establish that she
transferred the funds to you for the express and sole purpose of paying for your
university needs and you used the funds for a different purpose, then you may be held
liable for conversion. The outcome of each case would depend on the specific facts and
circumstances, as well as the strength of the arguments and evidence presented by
each party.