Example Exposing Fake Article

This is the perfect example of an individual attempting to publish a fabricated article and how easily people like this are exposed. http://www.thecumberlander.ca/show2041a45s/Why_Is_Alan_de_Jersey_Embarrassed
How can he believe no one noticed he proved my point?
Information IS power.

The videos posted at Union Bay Improvement News http://www.youtube.com/user/UnionBayImprovement/videos are to provide information to the public regarding the process and decisions being made on your behalf by those who promised to represent YOUR interests.

I previously provided your government with copies of the videos, but in keeping with their policies - information is not shared.
It is impossible for people to attend all the meetings, and the miniscule information provided in the minutes and the Landowners Update are inadequate.

In keeping with my beliefs - I want all of us to know what's going on. Only videos regarding The Union Bay Improvement District will be posted. More videos will be added to keep information current.

YOU GET THE GOVERNMENT YOU DESERVE

More at: http://allthingsunionbay.blogspot.ca/

Misappropriation

In
law, misappropriation is the intentional, illegal use of the property or funds of another person for one's own use or other unauthorized purpose, particularly by a public official, a trustee of a trust, an executor or administrator of a dead person's estate or by any person with a responsibility to care for and protect another's assets (a fiduciary duty). It is a felony, a crime punishable by a prison sentence.
From 2007 Mail Outs Titled "Fairness In Our Community", and posted on old blog. Still believe it to be true.
Again, if anyone thinks I’ve got my facts wrong. maryreynoldsis@hotmail.com more at http://allthingsunionbay.blogspot.com/ By the way, I’m not auditioning to become a friend etc., so I’m not interested in comments regarding my presentation, style, bluntness, politeness blah blah - get it? This is not personal – it is business – I don’t care if one of your relatives or friends or neighbors is an elected official. They are accountable – like it or not. It doesn’t matter what level of government – they are elected.

Union Bay Residents' Association - A Front For KIP

Union Bay Residents' Association - A Front For KIP
Union Bay Residents' Association - Created to Promote KIP

PROTECT OUR WATER SOURCE.
STOP THE FORCED TRANSFER OF UNION BAY`S WATER LICENCE.

REGARDING KENSINGTON ISLAND PROPERTIES: THE WORDS I USE REGARDING KIP AS A DEVELOPER ARE AN EXPRESSION OF MY OPINION AS A RESIDENT OF UNION BAY, BC., AND MY CONCERNS THIS DEVELOPMENT POSES TO OUR COMMUNITY.

Monday, December 27, 2010

No Defamation Remedy For Local Government

Issue No. 69 • Spring 2009
LoGo NoteBook … a newsletter for local governments
Staples
McDannold
Stewart
Barristers & Solicitors


No Defamation Remedy For Local Government
The law of defamation has recently changed for local government in British Columbia.  


In 1975, the British Columbia Court of Appeal in the City of Prince George v. British Columbia Television Systems Ltd. held that local government could bring an action for defamation. The Court held that since every incorporated municipality has all the rights and liabilities of a corporation and because a corporation had a right of action in defamation that a municipal corporation had the same right. In response to concerns
about protecting freedom of speech, the Court of Appeal stated:


“…The short answer to counsel’s submission, founded on freedom of speech, is simply that that right, under our law, must be exercised subject to the law of defamation which affords everyone protection against injury to reputation by untrue imputation. Moreover, as counsel for the respondent pointed out, in my view correctly, the law of defamation makes adequate provision by the principle adopted in respect of fair comment to protect those who make legitimate critical comments on matters of public interest.
In my view the appellant’s argument founded on free speech is without merit.”


In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted including, in Section 2(b), that everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media communication. On March 26, 2009, the British Columbia Supreme Court, in Dixon v. the City of Powell River, heard an application for an order that the City of Powell River did not have the legal authority to institute civil proceedings or threaten to do so for
defamation of its reputation as a municipal government. As summarized by the Court, the plaintiff, supported by the Attorney General of British Columbia, argued that the 1975 Prince George decision was: 


“… not binding authority on this Court because, although defamation is a common law cause of action, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that the law of defamation is informed by the principles of free speech enshrined in the Charter. In other words, common law defamation cases should be decided in ways that are consistent with the Charter principles of free speech. Because Prince George was decided before the Charter became Canadian law, counsel says it is not binding on this Court so as to
compel me to fnd that a municipal government may maintain an action for defamation.”


The Court agreed. After referring to a number of Ontario decisions, which had recently refused to follow the Prince George case, the Court held that a municipal government could not maintain an action in defamation. The Court stated:


“In this case I conclude that I am not bound to follow the judgment in Prince George because a relevant statute, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, came into force after the judgment in that case and the arguments concerning freedom of speech obviously did not consider that law. Given the authorities I have cited, I conclude that the rejection of the right to free speech argument by the Court in Prince George is inconsistent with the current law enshrined in the Charter and therefore, as per Spruce Mills, it follows that I do not consider Prince George to be binding on me.
… The Charter enshrined value of freedom of expression is paramount and local governments have resort to other means to protect their reputations from citizens who publish critical commentary about the government itself… It is antithetical to the notion of freedom of speech and a citizen’s rights to criticize his or her government concerning its governing functions, that such criticism should be chilled by the threat of a suit in defamation.”


This case is of signifcance as it has changed the law in British Columbia. Local government can no longer bring an action for defamation to its corporate reputation. Individual members of Council or staff will still have the ability to do so but such an
action will have to be brought by them personally against any

defendants.

Guy McDannold