CBC News article: "Montreal residents fight prostitution online"

[Merlot]

Anyhow, these residents could be very non-accusatory on their pages and just post actions they witnessed, like I have stated - loitering lengthy periods waiting for cars, entering cars and riding off and returning at a later time to do the same thing. I don't see how a Judge would rule against them. In fact, it could be viewed as a News story.

Whew,

This makes no sense Daydreamer. According to you these people made/filed a complaint about SW prostitutes with the police who did nothing as you say. So having made that complaint anything further they do connects them to the original accusation and they cannot play innocent from their legal responsibilities.

Don't forget, everyone is likely on the side of the citizens in agreeing the citizens should be able to live without SWs and the typical accompanying atmosphere with it's dangers. The difference between us here is some look at the problem and seem to think the righteous citizens have rights and the SWs have none or none that are valid because they are the problem. The rest of us believe all have the same rights until they are convicted and those rights are restricted. That's restricted by the law and justice, but never really less than anyone else.

If anyone cares to read the actual judgement instead of a sloppy news report that fails to cite the specifics of the case law, it can be found here:

http://www.jugements.qc.ca/php/deci...318BE40B9A71C1358EA9D8F840131477D46E504B01B32

The litigant won her claim (1), but not: l'article 49 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne (L.R.Q., c. C-12). My very cursory reading indicates defamation in a publication was the root concern, and the win. A lawyer called to the Quebec bar would be the appropriate legal resource to determine if this case applies to the Facebook page, or as I said previously, complaints by the tricks or hookers could be filed under PIPEDA, due to their publication in public electronic media.

(1) Selon la Cour du Québec, les actes du photographe et de la maison d'édition portaient atteinte au droit à l'image et, partant, à la vie privée. En conséquence, elle les assimilait à une faute civile, sur laquelle elle fondait une condamnation solidaire à des dommages-intérêts pour indemnisation d'un préjudice moral.

Even convicted criminals have rights. It's not being a low life to defend the rights of others. We're not in Iran here.

She lost under art.49 because that's for punitive damages. The photograph was innocuous, in fact artistic, and the photographer was well intentioned. The same cannot be said in this case.

The case was not about defamation, it was about right to image and privacy under Quebec civil law. In this case, defamation would be an extra ground for suing.

I think you are right that PIPEDA could apply to this case. But PIPEDA is toothless compared to CcQ + Charter damages, so that's the better place to file the case.

I don't think I'll have anything useful to add until additional facts come to light.

Thanks Kepler, I can't read French very well and something like a court ruling is definitely far too complicated for a translator to get close to being right. So your clarification was very helpful.

That's the problem with these boards. At one time or another everyone makes asserted factual statements erroneously. Assessments that are off base and misleading are common here whether through mistakes, misinformation, biased interests or some other factor that creates a false assessment. We should all remember that we are not usually experts about what we are reading or may have a goal in mind interferes with the facts or the truth. It would be much better if we all stuck to opinions rather than trying to make definitive statements in areas we are not qualified to understand or represent to others accurately.

Cheers,

Merlot