Defamation (libel and slander) cases are tough to run because there is a high degree of proof required. As well, you must show that the words were communicated to third parties, that they were untrue, and that they injured or were intended to injure your reputation. There are comparatively few cases of defamation launched in Canada, and not many make it to trial or are successful.
But that doesn’t stop people from trying. One of the more tantalizing cases was a lawsuit against a comedienne named Sunda Croonquist. She is half Swedish, half African-American and was raised in New Jersey. She married a Jewish man and converted to Judaism.
Read Also
Message to provincial agriculture ministers: focus on international trade
International trade stakeholders said securing markets in the face of increasing protectionism should be the key priority for Canada’s agriculture ministers.
Notwithstanding her career in the justice system as a parole board member and probation officer, she embarked upon a career in comedy. She apparently found her husband’s family members (and the cultural differences with her own background) endlessly amusing, and worked them into her act and posted it on the internet.
Apparently the in-laws didn’t find this amusing. Her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and his wife sued her. They alleged she ridiculed them in her act. I suppose saying your sister-in-law has a voice “like a cat in heat” could hardly be termed complimentary.
Their allegations started with the traditional defamation, but also included casting the family in a false light, and intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress. They also claimed compensation based on unjust enrichment – where the comedienne profited improperly by making fun of her in-laws.
Croonquist responded aggressively. She made numerous comments on her blog, suggesting her in-laws were the ones doing something improper by trying to restrict her career and her act, and that the in-laws were “taking food out of the mouths of my children.”
The comedienne won. The trial judge ruled that all of these statements were nothing more than her personal opinions, and that they did not constitute defamation. The judge ruled that many of the statements were true.
American free speech protection is markedly different than ours and is enshrined in their constitution and in the first amendment. Don’t take this as a licence to imitate Croonquist. I’d proceed cautiously and get legal advice before making the comments this person did.
What the legal judgment doesn’t tell us is how much fun everyone in that family is having during get-togethers. It might be that something more than the turkey gets carved.
Rick Danyliuk is a lawyer with McDougall Gauley LLP in Saskatoon.
