Vancouver counsel gets $1 in indemnification after suing Google Plus ranter

First, a discontented former customer called her a “worstest lawyer” in a Google Plus post.

Then, a B.C. Supreme Court decider awarded Kyla Lee $1 in indemnification as a approach of expressing her disapproval with Lee’s preference to sue for defamation.

But a Vancouver counsel says she doesn’t bewail going to probity over what she claims was an astray conflict that impacted her business.

“Anybody can write anything about anyone on a internet and there hasn’t been many in a approach of consequences or in a approach of a satisfactory routine for people to understanding with that,” said Lee. 

“We wish to try to double down on internet defamation. We wish to try to make it fairer for businesses.”

‘You can’t greatfully everybody all a time’

Justice Catherine Murray’s brief though purposeful decision lands precisely in a sequence between satisfactory comment, online critique and a reasonable expectations of eccentric contractors like Lee perplexing to work in a internet age.

Lee’s primary area of use is severe 90-day evident roadside pushing prohibitions. The critique during a heart of a lawsuit was posted on her Google Plus form page by former customer Hoan Nguyen.

The critique was posted on Google Plus by a former customer of counsel Kyla Lee. He was dissapoint when he mislaid his box and demanded a refund. (The Associated Press)

Nguyen had demanded Lee reinstate him after he was catastrophic in appealing his prohibition.

According to Murray’s ruling, when she wouldn’t pay, he wrote: “anywhere else would be moore helpful. worstest lawyer.”

The law organisation Lee works with threatened to sue if Nguyen didn’t lift a post down. When it wasn’t removed, they filed a notice of polite explain for defamation.

Because Nyugen didn’t uncover adult to urge himself, Lee won a default judgment — definition no statute was done on a tangible merits of her claim.

Murray was tasked with assessing indemnification and costs.

But she also questioned Lee’s preference to sue and weighed in on a merits of her claim.

“Business people with Google Plus profiles or a like entice comments from customers. Surely, no one can design to accept all enlightened reports,” Murray wrote.

“When selecting a counsel or other veteran or use provider, impending business reading such reviews would be genuine to consider that anyone or any business would accept all certain reports. As a proverb goes, we can’t greatfully everybody all a time.”

‘Action should never have been brought’

According to a ruling, Lee claimed calls from clients had forsaken in a arise of a post and pronounced intensity clients had mentioned a review. She estimated indemnification during around $15,000.

But Murray pronounced she wasn’t given evidence about a decrease in business. She also remarkable that a difference were apparently created by a discontented customer in bad English.

She pronounced while a comments were derogatory, she had her doubts that they amounted to defamation.

The critique was posted by a former customer of Kyla Lee’s who was dissapoint since he mislaid an interest of a roadside breach for marred driving. (CBC)

“I am not confident that a reasonable, right meditative person, courteous and informed, would accept a post as being accurate,” she wrote.

“Nor am we satisfied that it would reduce or even impact their determination of (Lee’s) reputation.”

Murray also pronounced lawyers should curb themselves in suing disastrous reviewers.

“It takes small for them to embark a lawsuit as they are informed with a law and can paint themselves. Defendants on a other palm are mostly not so fortunate,” Murray wrote.

“In my view, this movement should never have been brought.”

‘Not a worstest ever’

Lee says she has no skeleton to appeal, though she disagrees with Murray’s decision.

As a lawyer, she has argued a constitutionality of B.C.’s roadside pushing laws in cases that have helped carve a stream iteration of a rules. She’s also been invited to a House of Commons to pronounce before a cabinet on probity and tellurian rights as an consultant witness.

She says she doesn’t design certain reviews all a time, quite in a business like law where detriment and feat are as many contingent on a strengths of a box as a skills of a lawyer.

But Lee says carrying a Google Plus page shouldn’t be an invitation to abuse.

“I positively honour anybody’s right to give a legitimate reason why they’re unfortunate with a service but to call me a worstest lawyer ever?” she says.

Lee says one of a many frustrating tools of a conditions is that even with a default visualisation and a profession of an award, there is no sequence in place to mislay a offending comment.

And one some-more thing: “I’ve got to say, I’m not a worstest ever.”

Read some-more from CBC British Columbia

Article source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/lawyer-defamation-google-plus-1.4706419?cmp=rss