The plaintiff’s lawyer must predict and counteract possible arguments that the defendants may offer in the defamation action that wrestling coach Phil Dubber brought against writer Marie Hitchens, and Wild Sports Controversies Magazine to make a clear and strong case that is following the Canadian defamation law. In an opinion essay by Hitchens, the author accuses Coach Dubber of having “indoctrinated generations of young athletes with some such aggressive tactics as the launch – almost christening – of a vicious rebel army. As indicated by this logic, Coach Dubber should be fired gamer because he is not fit to be a coach. However, it should be noted, nevertheless, that defamation laws in Canada require that a comment be made that makes a person discreditable in the eyes of reasonable persons or subject them to hatred, contempt, or scorn (Crawford & G., n.d., pp. 42–71). To determine whether this statement meets the listed qualifications its background must be analyzed.
In this case, a potential spot of defamation could also be the description of Coach Dubber’s techniques as harmful and risky, and they could negatively traumatize or hurt his players. Alternatively, the claim that the Dubber is organizing a “cruel revolt army” might be interpreted as a statement that is very scandalous and scandalous even to humans and insulting towards Dubber’s status as a mastermind. Therefore, firing Dubber also implies inefficiency or bad decisions, and helps to ruin his integral image in the company. The defense on the part of the defendants may be that the inferences were opinions and not factual statements. It is very important to note that comments can still be considered defamatory when they imply false information that has not been provided. Therefore, it is crucial to study the consequences and understanding of Hitchens’ words to determine whether or not they are factual representations of the achievements of Coach Dubber, or are part of the domain of opinion.
To bolster the case, it’s essential to gather facts that the court would accept as evidence of the context and implications of Hitchens’ statements. This may include evidence of Coach Dubber’s coaching methods, statements from athletes or colleagues regarding the impact of his coaching, and expert testimony on the effects of aggressive coaching tactics on young athletes. One potential defense the defendants may raise is fair comment, arguing that Hitchens’ statements were based on facts and represented her honestly held opinion. However, if the statements are found to imply undisclosed defamatory facts or go beyond fair comment, this defense may not apply.
It is essential for obtaining evidence that the court would consider the evidence of Hitchens’ background and consequences that are important for strengthening the argument (Carswell, 2015). This could be by providing the testimony of the athletes or teammates of Coach Dubber about his influence, his coaching methods, and expert testimony on the harmful consequences of the unreasonably tense coaching techniques to young athletes. The defendants could raise fair comment as a defense saying that Hitchens could make that remark having received materials that contained correct information and fairly demonstrated her point of view. However, this defense may fail if it is found that the statements extend beyond that of a reasonable opinion or imply unreported libelous facts.
In conclusion, it is important that the lawyer serving the complainant takes into consideration the essence of the alleged defamatory statements, gathers evidence to support the claim, and factors from any future defenses resulting from the defendants. The plaintiff can strengthen his position on his claim against the defendants by presenting a definite and legally sound argument that is based on statistics and backed by Canadian defamation law.
References
Carswell, T. (2015). Scarborough.
Crawford, & G., M. (n.d.). The Journalist’s Legal Guide (6th Edition, pp. 42–71).
write