Apology for Gordon Wilson

[Veovis]

The truth does not equal slander. Everything that's been written about Wilson on this thread can be verified by looking in the MSM archives.

Yes or no, are you proud of what Horgan said?

You sound like you are.

Wilson is no more a victim than any other opportunist who tries to make hay out of someone else's mistakes.

This is a false statement and not truth. There wasn't a mistake, there was a personal attack on an individual and slanderous statement officially issued. That's not an oops moment, that's a "damn we're writing a big cheque to avoid the court press" moment.

Wilson could be a dirt bag and it wouldn't change that what was said was false, and wrong, and should never have happened and has real consequences.......but you forgive blindly as you find reason to hate him personally.

[flamingfingers]

I wonder if G. Wilson has thought about his possible 'reward' for suing for defamation? Considering the average award for defamation. lawyer's fees and other costs, maybe he should think carefully about what he is doing.

Canada: A Review Of Damage Awards In Defamation
Last Updated: October 3 2012
Article by David A. Gooderham
Alexander Holburn Beaudin + Lang LLP

The experience of the past ten years confirms that very large damages in defamation cases in British Columbia are relatively rare. We can count only five cases since 2001 in which the damage awards were $200,000 or higher.

In contrast most damage awards for defamation in this Province remain between $10,000 to $40,000 at the lower end of the range and up to $150,000 at the higher end of what we refer to as the "conventional range". The overwhelming majority of assessments fall within the "low" ($10,000 to $40,000) and "mid-level" ($60,000 to $80,000) range, with relatively few at the higher level ($100,000 to $150,000).

As to what explains the wide differences in the level of damages, the seriousness of the wrongful imputation (the content of the defamatory words) is one factor. But rarely does the content alone explain the level of damages.

But a third cluster of factors – which appears to be most significant in moving cases to the highest level of damages – concerns the conduct and motives of the defendant both during and after publication and even after the commencement of litigation. In cases where there is a persistent, willful and repeated pattern of publishing known falsehoods (or publishing statements with reckless indifference to whether they are true or not) the highest level of damages is more likely to result.

The level of damages in many cases is determined by how a defendant responds and handles the matter after a complaint is first received. Decisions made immediately after the complaint and even decisions taken after the start of litigation can significantly affect the level of damages.

http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/197344/L ... Defamation

By Horgan and Ralston's immediate retraction and apology to Wilson, he probably won't get a heck of a much.

[lasnomadas]

"Hate" is much too strong a word for how I feel about Wilson. His political history disgusts me, but I have never met the man personally, so have no reason to hate him. And no, I'm not proud of the fact that the NDP screwed up by adding insult to injury, but I also believe if this thing ever goes to court that Wilson will come out in worse shape than Horgan. In a high-profile case like that, Wilson's past history is bound to come out, and he'll suffer the consequences. His reputation was shot long ago.

[Veovis]

By Horgan and Ralston's immediate retraction and apology to Wilson, he probably won't get a heck of a much.

Actually due to the continued garbage tossing and comments here and on many other social media sites, the damage is clearly provable, and the apology clearly did not get people to stop defaming the individual. These peoples actions (in support of Horgan somehow) are actually the real reason the payment will likely not be small.

Had posters everywhere said "shame on Horgan for making me say such things about this individual due to Johns lies" then maybe, but most as seen on this site, have actually doubled down on the defamation.

That proves damages.

The people who want this to go away, are actually the ones making worse day by day.




And by payment, I think I will include two things. Cash paid, and political harm. Those combined will be huge for Horgan.

[flamingfingers]

^^^AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!



You REALLY think that a court of law will ACTUALLY filtch through the Castanet forum, the tweets, twitters and newspaper comments??

Sheesh!!! You are not as important as you think you are.

[Veovis]

^^^AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!



You REALLY think that a court of law will ACTUALLY filtch through the Castanet forum, the tweets, twitters and newspaper comments??

Sheesh!!! You are not as important as you think you are.

Of course not. His lawyers will and likely have. Castent might not make the list but you think that since you post hatred under a fake name no one ever sees it?

Good thing I'm the naive one for reality. whew.

[flamingfingers]

??Hatred?? To Gordon Wilson?? I don't hate anyone - hate is too rich an emotion to share with people I have no respect for.

[hobbyguy]

Indications are that Gordon Wilson is going to proceed with the lawsuit.

I don't blame him. Political bullying and stupidity by Ralston and Horgan is unacceptable.

Betcha Wilson could raise the costs pretty easily without having to dip into his own money...

[Urbane]

You REALLY think that a court of law will ACTUALLY filtch through the Castanet forum, the tweets, twitters and newspaper comments??

Sheesh!!! You are not as important as you think you are.

Wilson has already referred to posts on social media that were made as a result of the defamation. Those posts have further tarnished his reputation. Of course the anti-Wilson posts on here and elsewhere are evidence to back up Wilson's claims. It was a big blunder by Horgan and Ralston. You can laugh now but it's Gordon Wilson who's going to get the last laugh one way or the other.

[flamingfingers]

Maybe you missed this part Urbane:

The level of damages in many cases is determined by how a defendant responds and handles the matter after a complaint is first received. Decisions made immediately after the complaint and even decisions taken after the start of litigation can significantly affect the level of damages.

Retraction and apology are strong mitigation factors in determining level of damages.

Courts are not particularly interested in social media blathering. Unless it is carried on by the defendants - Horgan and Ralston.

[Urbane]

Maybe you missed this part Urbane:



The level of damages in many cases is determined by how a defendant responds and handles the matter after a complaint is first received. Decisions made immediately after the complaint and even decisions taken after the start of litigation can significantly affect the level of damages.



Retraction and apology are strong mitigation factors in determining level of damages.

Courts are not particularly interested in social media blathering. Unless it is carried on by the defendants - Horgan and Ralston.

No question that Horgan and Ralston defamed Wilson and Wilson may just proceed with a suit to prove that point in a court of law. Despite what you claim, comments made on social media that are a result of the erroneous statements are admissible in court. And again, for you it's about the amount of money that Wilson might or might not win but for me it's about right and wrong. Horgan and Ralston were wrong.

[Veovis]

Retraction and apology are strong mitigation factors in determining level of damages.

Courts are not particularly interested in social media blathering. Unless it is carried on by the defendants - Horgan and Ralston.

You seem to think you are the court. You really think no one has been sued over social media comment? Wrong

You think no one has been arrested over social media actions? Wrong

People have never been fired over social media comments right? Wrong

You think just saying "sorry" absolves all guilt? Weird, pretty sure many rapists and murderers apologized and still went to jail.....why would other misdeeds be ignored?

Your are right......courts have never cared about online activities. Child luring is a myth I suppose, the courts ignore the online discussion right?

How far your forgiveness and whitewashing of misdeeds run is truly amazing/appalling.

Right, online behavior is never considered by the court......it would be comical if it wasn't just so so awful.

[flamingfingers]

Horgan and Ralston were wrong.

And it did not take them a whole week to apologize. They did apologize within hours of receiving this information.

They said they were wrong, apologized for it, but still you want to beat this dead horse?

Give it up, Urbane.

[erinmore3775]

The Symthe pieces in the newspaper, the Steele and Drex interview, and the following Harvey Oberfeld blog all clearly demonstrate that both social and economic damage was done to Wilson's public character and his possibilities for future employment.

http://harveyoberfeld.ca/blog/keystone-cop-firing-explodes-in-horgans-face/

Any lawyer worth his/her salt has already trolled forum sites like Castanet (particularly Castanet because it is in a Liberal stronghold) to see how Horgan's and Ralstan's statements about Wilson were received and their public reaction. In cases like this, it is not even necessary that the contributors of the opinions and comments be identified, nor would they have to appear in court. The printed forum would only have to be presented in court to show the "effect" of the defamation.

Actually, those who continue to "support" Horgan'sand Ralstan's comments just further justify Wilson suing for defamation.

[Veovis]

And it did not take them a whole week to apologize. They did apologize within hours of receiving this information.

They said they were wrong, apologized for it, but still you want to beat this dead horse?

Give it up, Urbane.

But they always had the information, and post stupid comments it was too late and the damage has clearly been done as shown here and elsewhere.

Saying sorry after texting and driving doesn't bring a victim back to life, why do you think that saying sorry after saying their stupid crap makes the comments many here made disappear? It doesn't. Easier to say "they screwed up, I take back what I said about him, shame on Horgan." Instead many here still say....."Wilson was crap anyways so it doesn't count".....you know....the good ole gross "She was askin for it" argument which is reprehensible....yet weirdly supported by too many here.