The case of Harvey Duke versus Marc Puts raised the issues related to claims of absolute and qualified privileges in defamatory statements. The former sued defendant for the damages that resulted from libel and slander, wrongful interference with contractual relations, and unlawful interference with economic interest (Duke v Puts, 2004). As a consequence of Puts’ actions, Duke had to sell his pharmacy at a lower price, move to work, and live in another location with less income. Puts claimed the defense of absolute and qualified privilege, but the former was accepted just partly, while the latter failed due to proven malicious motive. Therefore, the trial judge evaluated the harm caused to the plaintiff to be equal to $300 thousand for loss of business, $100 thousand for general, and $150 thousand for aggravated damages. In this regard, the current report, first, seeks to investigate which justifications respondents may use to evade the legal responsibility for defamation and, secondly, analyze whether this argument could be used by Puts in defense.
There are generally several strategies that defendants can adopt in order to defend themselves when faced with defamation accusations. Firstly, the truth is considered an absolute defense in libel law (McLennan Ross, 2018). It is based on the rationale that correct and honest statements cannot be considered libel or slander. Therefore, the evidence that the statement is true releases the respondents from legal responsibility. However, such a justification is limited to one condition, namely the absence of malicious motives from the defendant. Next, the argument of fair comment may be used, which signifies that the defendant expressed personal opinion – the right granted to him by the law. Still, similarly to the previous argument, a personal opinion should be based on true facts and lack any hidden motives behind the action that intends to hurt another person (Brewer & Pomer, 2016).
Moreover, respondents may claim the defense of absolute and qualified privileges. The former protects individuals from legal consequences of defamatory statements that were made during judicial proceedings and political or legislative speeches or debates. The latter includes assertions made in self-defense or motivated by personal moral and public duties. The argument of whether an individual indeed had certain ethically- or society-based responsibilities in certain situations is examined through the lenses of common people (McLennan Ross, 2018). In other words, it means that the righteousness of the action should be evaluated by the court as if the general public would evaluate it.
Considering all mentioned above, Puts could argue that his statements against Duke were truthful and provide evidence to prove his assertions. In that case, this argument would serve as his absolute defense against accusations of defamation. Based on it, Puts could further argue that his actions of interference with contractual relations and interference with economic interests are motivated by public duties. Finally, the defendant could argue that he solely tried to protect Duke’s employees and other people from the harm that the plaintiff can cause due to “fraud and forgery to improper practice” (Duke v Puts, 2004). However, the evidence that all the Puts’ actions were malicious in nature would destroy the aforementioned line of defense.
In summary, the current report analyzed the strategies that can be used by defendants accused of defamation. They include truth, fair comment, and absolute and qualified privileges. However, it was found that none of those arguments can alleviate the legal liability once the malicious motivations behind slanderous and/or libelous actions are proved. Therefore, it was concluded that even though Puts could assert that his statements were true and he was motivated by public duty when interfered with contractual relations, his arguments would still be defeated by the reason mentioned above.
References
Brewer, N. & Pomer, R. (2016). Understanding Canadian defamation law. Freedom to Read, 32, 20-23.
Duke v. Puts (2004), 241 Sask.R. 187 (CA); 313 W.A.C. 187.
McLennan Ross (2018). Canada: A primer on defamation.