[Section 15] Harper Using Another Lawsuit to Possibly Attack Liberal Fundraising

In what I can only call an addition to a scandalous, concerted effort to discourage accountability, Harper has added to his defamation lawsuit a million dollar claim for Misappropriation of Personality (wouldn't that just be petty theft?). Though details are at this time lacking, this is most likely a claim concerning Liberal Party fundraising.

Harper is also seeking an injunction, though we don't know what precisely for. If the tort concerns Liberal fundraising -- and I think that likely -- than the injunction would be to prevent his likeness being used by the Liberals in any fundraising context.

"Misappropriation of personality" -- What the heck is that, you ask? It is a common law tort, which, to be met in Ontario, requires that

(1) There is an element of commercial exploitation of a person's personality.
(2) The person is clearly identifiable in the medium used and to their respective communities.
(3) The person does not consent to the use of their personality.
(4) Damages; either emotional or financial losses are proven.
(from Krouse v Chrysler)

I have no idea how narrow or broad of an injunction Harper is seeking. I suspect that in the least this is over that audio clip that has Harper saying that Chuck Cadman was offered "financial considerations" -- a phrase Harper himself has repeatedly refused to explain, and one he desperately does not want played over and over again in Liberal election ads in the likely coming Fall election.

Such things can be covered by this tort. Fortunately for democracy in Canada, there is a public interest defense applicable:

[17] More broadly, it also seems clear that in articulating this tort the court must be mindful of the public interest. In Krouse, supra, the Ontario Court of Appeal explicitly stated at p. 240 O.R., p. 30 D.L.R.:

Progress in the law is not served by the recognition of a right which, while helpful to some persons or classes of persons, turns out to be unreasonable disruption to the community at large and to the conduct of its commerce.

[18] While not explicitly offering any principles that ought to guide the development of this tort, the court at p. 240 O.R., p. 30 D.L.R. did warn:

The danger of extending the law of torts to cover every such exposure in public not expressly authorized is obvious.

(From Glen Gould Estate v. Stoddart Publishing Co. Ltd., 1998)

It is interesting that we are not seeing a large press conference rollout by Harper this time around. The last attempt by the Conservatives to present positive spin with this lawsuit was, at best, a partial catastrophe. This time, they seem to be handing out sparse details.

I would put little stock in the theory that Harper tried to bribe Chuck Cadman if it wasn't for the mounting evidence that Harper plays so dirty. After spending millions of dollars defaming Dion with advertisements, circumnavigating our electoral laws with the in-and-out scandal, stifling the press, suing the Liberal Party for reporting on Hansard contents, and, currently, fostering a national unity crisis to combat Dion's Green Shift, I think that Harper honors only the acquisition and maintenance of power, and will do whatever it takes.

His torts against the Liberal Party are nothing less than attacks upon our very freedoms.

We, the voters, are quite well qualified to determine if the Liberals stepped over any line here.

One thing, for me, is sure: Harper certainly has.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 7/03/2008 07:59:00 AM