• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page



Recent comments

  • Michael
    May 12, 2013 - 02:38

    The timing of this against Jones just seems strange to me considering how close it is to a by election. I could be wrong but that's just my opinion. Yvonne Jones seems like a good person who cares and wants to try and solve some of the many problems that need attention and perhaps some don't agree with her politics despite the fact she is ahead in the polls. Why can't everyone just try and get along with each other?

  • Talamh
    May 11, 2013 - 06:36

    The timing is significant. Wouldn't the days just before a by election be a good time to try to call in to question a candidate's good character? I suspect a blatant political manoeuvre here. If it sounds like a dirty trick and smells like a dirty trick, chances are very good that it is a dirty trick. Sigh!

  • Rosanna Lopez
    May 11, 2013 - 06:01

    First of all, most of what Jones said was said in the House, so the majority of it has immunity anyway. Secondly, as a lawyer myself I can tell you that proving slander accusations is often difficult because you have to show that the damages you suffered actually resulted from the statements of the person you are accusing. There could be all sorts of reasons why this company didn't get a contract that had nothing to do with what Jones said. They need to show that what Jones said was the cause of them not getting the contract and that what she said damaged them directly. Otherwise there is no causal relationship established between them.

  • george p b
    May 10, 2013 - 14:59

    slander is ORAL defamation---someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed.... whereas libel is the WRITTEN or BROADCAST form of defamation.....

  • Virginia Waters
    May 10, 2013 - 12:25

    This is amusing but hardly surprising. Most threats of legal action for defamation or libel are nothing more than intimidation - a pressure tactic intended to secure a retraction or frighten the alleged offender into silence. Ms. Jones never had anything to worry about. Any statements made in the house were exempt from legal action. Statements she might have made outside the house regarding Labrador shipping services are covered under the 'fair comment' principle of common law. Moreover, given that her job was to speak out for her constituents and residents of the province generally, the courts would be inclined to give her substantial latitude. As long as it is an honestly held view - one that other reasonable people might share, she is in the clear. Her comments are were directed at a corporation - not an individual - rendering any slander action even more unlikely to succeed. My guess is that if CAI and Mr. Newman ever get beyond the bluff, bluster and bully stage, they will need to send their 'documents' to Ms. Jones at her new address in Ottawa. Either that or they can start looking around for a real good recipe for 'a la crow'.