Brian Burke suing Larry Brooks

[BLONG7]

Is anyone else thinking "Im hoping Strachan and Garrioch are next"?

Burke has always taken exception with these types of writers, and by that I mean he seems to try to take them to task for what he claims are things that they make up...and then site sources that they won't release...These guys are always stirring the pot in order to gain attention to their columns, and I think most people see past this and usually just don't bother reading the columns...

 

[Schlep Rock]

This might up ending being more interesting than most lawsuits. The reason? Brooks claims that his sources are legit and even legally, it is VERY hard for a court to force a reporter to give up his sources. If Brooks is forced in court to do so, you might see an even bigger fight.

Could be quite interesting.

A local reporter was just released from 6-months house arrest for not revealing a source. It pertained to the source violating a court order BUT the entire judgement against the reporter was that he does not have any right to protect any source not specifically one that has violated the law. NBC news everybody picked it up because if the motions against him were that he is protecting a source that committed a crime, it'd be legit but they entire judgement was based on he was asked in court to reveal his source and he didn't.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

And what are you by night? Doctor?

Drag queen !

Don't sue me please !

 

[Dave is a killer]

I think this is a legit lawsuit against one of if not the scummiest windbag in all of reporting ... 1) we all know that Larry Brooks loves to report any rumor under the wind ... 2) we also know that Larry loves to make up **** as well ... BUT, inferring that Brian Burke be as responsible as Todd Bertuzzi in the case against Steve Moore is a low blow, and has defamed Brian Burke, at least in the States ... what I hope this lawsuit does is get Larry Brooks kicked off the NHL sports writers' association ... thanks Larry its been a nice run, but ya had to close out some time

 

[Hasbro]

Is this more about character or disputing a claim that would have left him and the Vancouver Canucks organization more vulnerable to a lawsuit from Moore's attorneys?

Read the article. Brooks outright implicates Burke as playing a large role in Moore's attack.

Read it when it came out.

More bluster on Burke's part.

Brook's lack of credibility can help him in this matter. Burke will have a harder time proving injury if no one believes the source.

I doubt much comes of this. This is a corperation the NHL has a business relationship with and would no doubt like to stave of any legal recourse from other agrieved partys.

 

[bleedgreen]

eration the NHL has a business relationship with and would no doubt like to stave of any legal recourse from other agrieved partys.

does the nhl have anything to do with this? i feel its burke on his own - not that the nhl likes brooks. i dont feel this is frivilous at all. defamation and slander lawsuits happen all the time - and in this one burke has been accused of participating in one of the most heinous on ice incidents in the history of the game. of course he is insulted, and he has proven in the past he wont take it like other people will. remember when a reporter (strachan?) had made disparaging remarks about burkes contract negotiations and something about the money involved. burke called him out on tv in front of the world to back it up, and when he was face to face with the guy he tore him a new one. burke doesnt turn the other cheek when you step over the line, and i respect him for it.

 

[Hasbro]

does the nhl have anything to do with this? i feel its burke on his own - not that the nhl likes brooks.

No, but I think the NHL is perfectly capable of leaning on Burke. I don't think they are well disposed towards Burke in the Bertuzzi matter

i dont feel this is frivilous at all. defamation and slander lawsuits happen all the time -

Frivolous? no. Quixotic? probably

and in this one burke has been accused of participating in one of the most heinous on ice incidents in the history of the game. of course he is insulted, and he has proven in the past he wont take it like other people will.

I think Brooks overreached on his degree of involement. Burke was certainly neglegent in preventing this matter, and possibly reckless. Brook most likely doesn't have the sources to back up the claim.

remember when a reporter (strachan?) had made disparaging remarks about burkes contract negotiations and something about the money involved. burke called him out on tv in front of the world to back it up, and when he was face to face with the guy he tore him a new one. burke doesnt turn the other cheek when you step over the line, and i respect him for it.

Lost his job for it. I might have respect for him standing up to a tabloid if it were confined to that. He's called reporter slime for less, whined about whatever the Avs were doing, turned on his former charges in officiating, and the whole Moore saga. It's like Bill O'Reilly, bluster, bellow and screech and somehow you get a rep as a "strait-shooter."

As much as I'd like to see Brooks, the Necronomicon and Newscorp taken to task in any matter I don't think it's going to happen. Out of court settlement, half assed reprimand for Brooks and quiet non-retraction retraction is my prediction.

 

[Dr Love]

As much as I like Burke, I hate the frivolous lawsuit atmosphere of the states. I hate incompetent journalism as well, but my hatred for lawsuits outweights my hatred for journalism. He loses a few respect points from me despite the lawsuit being legitimate.

How can you say you hate this because of frivilous lawsuits and say that this lawsuit is legit? (Well you just did, but still...)

 

[Steve L*]

Brook's lack of credibility can help him in this matter. Burke will have a harder time proving injury if no one believes the source.

You dont have to prove injury in libel, you just have to prove what was written was false.

If I wrote that an NHL player was a child abuser, noone would believe me but that doesnt mean he wouldnt win a case of libel against me.

 

[mudcrutch79]

I'm a lawyer by day (in the U.S., who admittedly has absolutely no knowledge of substantive Canadian law) and can tell you that the answer is so easy as to why the suit was filed in Canada, not here. It's not where the article was written that's important; it's where the alleged "injury" occurred, i.e. in Canada where Burke lives.

Our jurisdictions for these sorts of things are provincial. I don't know what US law is on this, but in Canada you don't have to show injury to make out libel. So it's kind of funny that he'd be making his decision based on where the injury occurred. More to the point, although it's completely irrelevant because injury doesn't matter, I imagine what he'd be most concerned about is this article hurting his ability to gain employment in the NHL again. I can assure you that it had no impact on whether or not an NHL franchise located in BC will employ him.

Am I correct in thinking that he'd have a tough time in the US with a libel suit on this? I took a US Const course this year, and vaguely remember a case where the USSC made it difficult to sue newspapers for libel if you're a public figure. We have no such protections in Canada for the press. I'm almost certain that this is a pure example of forum shopping, as he's picking the forum where he has the greatest chance of winning. Nothing at all to do with the injury, in my opinion.

 

[Hasbro]

Libel/slander/defamation verys state to state here. In any event proving injury helps a case and proving injury as a result would be pretty hard since Magic 8-balls are more reliable than Brooks. (Of course it would be hillarious if Brooks was 100% correct in the article and had it meticulously documented, i rather doubt it though.)

 

[bleedgreen]

Lost his job for it. I might have respect for him standing up to a tabloid if it were confined to that. He's called reporter slime for less, whined about whatever the Avs were doing, turned on his former charges in officiating, and the whole Moore saga. It's like Bill O'Reilly, bluster, bellow and screech and somehow you get a rep as a "strait-shooter."

my respect for burke goes long before he was the canucks gm - goes back to the job he did with the whale over a decade ago. i ahev no problem with his response to the moore incident. he stood up for his player when it was the toughest thing to do, and i respect that. he has always been a "straight-shooter". what did he do wrong in the moore situation? i would agree he gets long winded, but i think his attitude is refreshing and entertaining in its honestly and directness. of course some people dont like it, but he is amongst the best in the business.

i hope brooks gets nailed to the wall.

 

[kmad]

How can you say you hate this because of frivilous lawsuits and say that this lawsuit is legit? (Well you just did, but still...)

Well, all lawsuits are technically legit.. I just don't like them.

 

[Hasbro]

my respect for burke goes long before he was the canucks gm - goes back to the job he did with the whale over a decade ago.

Couldn't stand him there either. His work in the league office didn't engender himself to me (or much of the Avs fanbase either)

i ahev no problem with his response to the moore incident. he stood up for his player when it was the toughest thing to do, and i respect that. he has always been a "straight-shooter". what did he do wrong in the moore situation?

I can't stand that he and his surrogates put a venier heroism on covering his ass. His constant refusal to admit any responciblity on his the Nuck's or Bert's part for injuring Moore, trying to shift blame onto Nikolishin, still trying to remain indignant over Naslund getting hit, dragging Moore through the mud. He's been content to shift his position on many issues when it serves his purpose, which doesn't speak well of his integretity

i would agree he gets long winded, but i think his attitude is refreshing and entertaining in its honestly and directness. of course some people dont like it, but he is amongst the best in the business.

i hope brooks gets nailed to the wall.

I find the guys on Pearl Street wearing tin foil on their head entertaining, but doesn't mean they're somebody to admire. More than a few Canucks fans find his reputation to be inflated past his accomplishments.

And depite all the American Lawyer bashing we've heard in this mess it always escapes notice Burke is an American lawyer.

I'd love to see Brooks taken down too, but I don't think it'll happen. It would be like someone suing Kiszla or Joe Williams.

 

[bleedgreen]

burke was an outstanding gm for the whale, and i think he did a great job for vancouver, who imo, were a mess at the time. you dont like him, i can see that but i respectfully disagree.

if someone took down kizla - i would do a jig.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Our jurisdictions for these sorts of things are provincial. I don't know what US law is on this, but in Canada you don't have to show injury to make out libel. So it's kind of funny that he'd be making his decision based on where the injury occurred. More to the point, although it's completely irrelevant because injury doesn't matter, I imagine what he'd be most concerned about is this article hurting his ability to gain employment in the NHL again. I can assure you that it had no impact on whether or not an NHL franchise located in BC will employ him.

Am I correct in thinking that he'd have a tough time in the US with a libel suit on this? I took a US Const course this year, and vaguely remember a case where the USSC made it difficult to sue newspapers for libel if you're a public figure. We have no such protections in Canada for the press. I'm almost certain that this is a pure example of forum shopping, as he's picking the forum where he has the greatest chance of winning. Nothing at all to do with the injury, in my opinion.

I find it quite humourous that Burkie of all people would sue given his often immoderate language and comments about others over the airwaves and in print. Brooks may have sufficient material for a counter-suit.

The other interesting thing is that Burke chose to file suit here in BC rather than in New York where the alleged defamation was published.

As a general rule it is much more difficult to succeed on a defamation suit in the US than in Canada (or other Commonwealth countries) because there are broader defences available there. I would anticipate that the the NY Post and Brooks will contest the jurisdiction of the BC courts to hear this matter.

Also there is a reverse onus (i.e certain presumptions) in favour of plaintiffs in Canada once publication has been proven as I have highlighted below that do not apply in the US where the plaintiff bears the burden of proof throughout.

Burke would be unlikely to succeed on his action in the US because of the First Amendment protection and the public figure defence available in the USA. Also he would not benefit from the reverse onus presumptions available in Canada.

Basic law on defamation in Canada:

Actions in Defamation:

a) The elements of a defamation action are as follows:

i) The plaintiff must prove publication of the defamatory statement. Publication means the making known of the defamatory statement, after it has been written or spoken, to some person other than the person of whom it is written or spoken;

ii) The plaintiff must prove that the defamation refers to the plaintiff; and

iii) The plaintiff must prove that the statement is defamatory. Simply put, a defamatory statement is "a false statement to a person's discredit".

b) Upon proof of publication, (Canadian) law makes several presumptions in favour of the plaintiff:

i) That the statement is false;

ii) That it was published with malice; and

iii) In the case of libel or slander per se, the plaintiff has suffered damage.

c) Defences:

i) Truth.

ii) Fair comment: The defendant is allowed to comment on facts truly stated, as long as the comment is fair and the defendant is not motivated by actual malice.

iii) Privilege: On certain occasions, the courts have held that policy and convenience require that a person should be free from responsibility for the publication of defamatory words. These occasions are constitute privileges.

http://www.cyberlibel.com/defences.html

I would anticipate that the defences would be that the matters published were true and/or that they constituted fair comment if it were to be heard in BC.

Another possibility is the defendants could argue that although the case is filed in BC and that BC procedural law is to be followed, the proper substanative law to be considered should be US (i.e New York) civil law. This involves an incredibly complex area referred to as "Conflict of Laws". In this case the defendants would argue that US law including US defences should be applied to the facts of the case. As I said this is incredibly complex and Conflicts of Law problems make my head hurt.

If the defendants do argue that a foreign system of substantive law should be applied, the court will determine which system ought to be applied and, if it is decided that a foreign system of substantive law “has a real and substantial connection to the tortâ€, then the dictates of that law must be proved as a fact (usually through testimony of an expert licensed practitioner (a lawyer) from that jurisdiction, although, in some instances, a Canadian judge in one province or a US judge in one state or district will interpret the dictates of another province’s or state’s legislation without the need of an expert).

Another issue would be enforcing any award of a BC court for defamation in the US. Despite legislation allowing reciprocal enforcement of civil judgments, courts in the United States are generally unwilling to enforce defamation judgments from other jurisdictions such as Canada and Britain because of First Amendment protection of freedom of expression. So Burke could win a "dry" judgment.

Clear as mud?????????????

 

[SENSible1*]

So Wettie, will you be offering your services to Brooks "pro bono"?

 

[Weary]

The other interesting thing is that Burke chose to file suit here in BC rather than in New York where the alleged defamation was published.

Don't forget that it was also published on the internet. I think Canadian courts have been very lenient about venue in such cases. I even remember reading something about a case where neither the plaintiff nor the defendant was Canadian, but the case was heard by a Canadian court.

 

[slosharksfan*]

well all i know that in order for burke to win in the us he has to prove that brooks knowingly lied, its kind of like the o'rilly- glick thing that happend a while ago

 

[Shane]

Burke - Harvard law grad
Brooks - Hack journalist

Pardon me if I like Burke's odds.

 

[ColoradoHockeyFan]

if someone took down kizla - i would do a jig.

It might be more worthwhile to take down Lincicome. Oh wait, no one reads him anyway.

 

[Wetcoaster]

well all i know that in order for burke to win in the us he has to prove that brooks knowingly lied,

No, not under BC law.

 

[Wetcoaster]

So Wettie, will you be offering your services to Brooks "pro bono"?

I am sure the New York Post has defamation law experts on permanent retainer.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Don't forget that it was also published on the internet. I think Canadian courts have been very lenient about venue in such cases. I even remember reading something about a case where neither the plaintiff nor the defendant was Canadian, but the case was heard by a Canadian court.

In BC the courts have been a little more wary of extending jurisdiction simply because it was published on the internet.

In Braintech, Inc. v. Kostiuk the BC Court of Appeal declined to enforce a default defamation judgment obtained in Texas against a BC resident simply because the alleged defamation was publicly available on the internet. The court noted:

It . . would create a crippling effect on freedom of expression of, in every jurisdiction the world over in which access to Internet could be achieved, a person who posts fair comment on a bulletin board could be hauled before the courts of each of those countries where access to this bulletin could be obtained.

 

[PecaFan]

I thought the article in question was actually printed in the paper. So the internet stuff doesn't apply at all.