Chayer c . Messier

2014 QCCS 357

SUPERIOR COURT

CANADA

PROVINCE OF QUEBEC

DISTRICT

MONTREAL

No. :

500-17-060774-109

DATE:

On February 5, 2014

______________________________________________________________________

IN THE CHAIR :

THE HONOURABLE

MARC DE Wever , J.C.S.

______________________________________________________________________

ROGER -LUC CHAYER

Applicant / Respondent counterclaimed

c .

ERIC Messier

Respondent / Applicant counterclaim

______________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

______________________________________________________________________

[1 ] The applicant , saying the victim of libel written by the defendant and propagated on websites , request orders to force them to withdraw and stop their publication. He also claimed $ 85,000 in moral damages, punitive damages and attorney’s fees.

[2] Invoking his right to freedom of expression, the defendant denies the merits of the plaintiff’s motion and cross demand calls for $ 90,000 in moral and punitive damages.

THE FACTS

[3 ] The applicant describes both as a musician and journalist.

[4] In 1983 he entered the Conservatoire de Nice music and gets a degree equivalent to a Master in the Québec education system. It has several scholarships and played in various orchestras in France .

[5] In 1992, back in Canada , he wrote hundreds of cultural features in the journal RG .

[ 6] The applicant states that essentially work as a journalist from the years 1998 to 1999 as a contributor to the TVA television network and the magazine Le Point.

[7] In 2002 , he acquired the magazine Le Point which becomes Gay Media Club / Gay Club Magazine. Meanwhile, he developed a website for the roundtables and film screenings .

[8] Finally, he organized his own production company called Tempo records , the last record date of December 2012 .

[9] In November 2012 , he received the Golden Jubilee Medal of Queen for his musical and journalistic careers.

[10 ] The applicant says he met for the first time from 1995 to 1996 to the defendant while the two work together to review RG . Thereafter, they cross a few times.

[11] In 1997 , the plaintiff discovered that the defendant imagine the events he describes in the journal then RG . He decides to denounce this fact to the Press Council.

[12 ] The applicant submits that from 1999 to September 2009 he has no contact with the defendant.

[13] On 12 September 2009 , the defendant, under the pseudonym Spiritos22 , saves on YouTube commented: ” Oh, okay , ” Before ” the National Assembly, I see! Heaven what clown. “(Exhibit P -4).

[14 ] The plaintiff says that the defendant wants to ridicule referring to his performance before the National Assembly, the ” Marseillaise ” on the occasion of the Celebration of the 400th anniversary of Quebec City .

[15] The next day, September 13, 2009 , he becomes aware of a document (Exhibit P- 3, pages 6-10 ) entitled ” folder Roger -Luc Chayer : a nuisance to society and justice” put online by the defendant on its website .

[16] It should be reproduced verbatim this document marks the beginning of this legal debate :

” FILE ROGER -LUC CHAYER : A NUISANCE TO THE COMPANY AND JUSTICE – TERMINATION OF THE COUNCIL PRESS ² ² GAI QUEBEC AND ROGER -LUC CHAYER :

This denunciation is to serve the public interest against Roger -Luc Chayer ( Bourbonnière Street , Montreal ) , a self-proclaimed journalist , repeatedly blamed by his peers and is recognized for having abused the justice system Quebec to pursue a large number of people and organizations .

The justice system in Quebec has decided there is some time to take measures to curb abuse of this individual , but without complete success.

Whereas the ” Council of Quebec gay press ” is neither legitimate nor representative of lesbians and gay communities in that it consists of a few individuals who have declared themselves members of the “Council” without consultation or participation of these communities or the middle of the press;

Whereas the “Council” , for those few people , seized itself of most of the complaints and has thereafter;

Whereas the “Council” does not follow the basic rules of ethics AND THAT “Council” tarnishes the image of lesbians and gay communities;

Whereas the Press Council of Quebec, the recognized ethical issues in journalistic material Authority condemned twice the writings of Roger -Luc Chayer (decisions D199603 -020 , a decision upheld on appeal , and decision – d199908 08 ) ;

Whereas the ” Conseil de presse du Québec gay ” is intimately and essentially related to two media, The National and The Point, thus violating the basic rules of impartiality and objectivity ;

Whereas Roger -Luc Chayer is the architect of the “National” and ” gay Press Council of Quebec,” and editor of the magazine Le Point ;

Whereas Roger -Luc Chayer creates and maintains unnecessarily and artificially so tendentious polemic against groups and individuals who work in gay and lesbians communities;

THEREFORE

We do not recognize the decisions of the ” Council of Quebec gay press ” because we do not recognize its legitimacy. We disagree writings and opinions of the “Council” Site ” The National” and Roger -Luc Chayer, and the magazine ” Le Point” as Roger -Luc Chayer will be the editor .

For more information , visit the Legal Defense Committee

SEE LIST OF GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS

Who denounced JOURNALIST SELF- PROCLAIMED ROGER CHAYER -LUC ,

HIS ALLEGED MEDIA AND PRESS COUNCIL EXPECTED ² ² GAI

29 GROUPS THAT HAVE SIGNED THE TERMINATION

…

48 INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED THE TERMINATION ( alphabetically )

…

Committee on Legal LGBT communities

ROGER -LUC CHAYER publicly denounced

FAILED ATTEMPT TO ROGER -LUC CHAYER muzzle the press

( Other link on this attempt failed )

Launch of the Legal Defense Fund of lesbians and gay communities in Quebec

RELEASE: ( TRUE ) PRESS COUNCIL SLAMS THE ALLEGED JOURNALIST ROGER -LUC CHAYER

National media is not the meaning of cyberjournalism , but rather the personal web Roger -Luc Chayer site.

The Press Council of Quebec concluded a major malpractice on the part of Mr. Roger -Luc Chayer and upholds the complaint , which applies jointly to the written and electronic media for The Point endorsed such a state of affairs .

Details on the website of the Table (Documents section)

Decisions ( only real ) PRESS COUNCIL OF QUEBEC about Roger -Luc Chayer

Be noted that it is surprising that the CPQ is concerned Chayer since the latter is by no professional group ” recognized journalist “, that is to say, only by itself.

But to fully appreciate the degree of nuisance Roger -Luc Chayer to society should be consulted countless lawsuits, some of which considered ridiculous by the judges themselves, since it has taken 10 to 20 years against Pierre- Jean Jacques -

to SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF QUEBEC

the SUPERIOR COURT OF QUEBEC

and COURT OF QUEBEC, among others.

Vaudeville ! ”

[17 ] However, the applicant notes that this document is almost completely identical to a statement issued in 2000 by the Association of lesbians and gays on the internet ( ALGI ) (Exhibit P- 3, pages 11-15 ) . Following this release , then take proceedings against the association and some of the signatories of the statement. These procedures result in a declaration of reciprocal waivers and out of court settlement approved by the Court November 6, 2007 (P-1 and P-2 parts ) .

[18 ] The applicant states that among the links that appear in the document ( at the bottom of page 8 , Exhibit P -3), there are leading to a judgment (Exhibit P -6) made ​​in proceedings against ALGI , judgment dismissing an application for non- publication in the proceeding and a comment about the ruling.

[19] In response to the publication by the defendant of the document relating to him (Exhibit P -3 ), the applicant sends the defendant a notice (Exhibit P -8) asking him to withdraw the document since it contains serious and false information.

[20] The defendant does not run , but instead brings several occasions changes to the original document ( Exhibits P -9 and P-10) .

[21] In December 2009, the applicant finds that the defendant continues to put on its website the document found three months earlier , and again , with additions (Exhibit P -15).

[22] Thus , in reviewing the curriculum vitae of the defendant (Exhibit P -17, page 71) , he notes that there is always a link to the document to which he objected (Exhibit P -17, page 72 and following) , as modified and additional links (Exhibit P -18) release.

[23] In the version of document end of December 2009 (Exhibit P -19 ), the applicant notes that the defendant even inserts his address and home telephone number (Exhibit P -19, page 80) . In addition, the defendant now has an English version of the document (Exhibit P-19 , page 80) .

[24 ] The applicant then instructs its counsel to deliver to the defendant a notice (Exhibit P- 16).

[25] On 5 January 2010, the defendant responds to the plaintiff as follows : “For what reason? ‘ll Surely you can find two to three forcing you , right? Maybe I ‘m just bored. Or maybe it was for the truth , you who love both the truth. Or to ” go where no one else will “? “(Exhibit P-20 , page 85).

[26] Also in January , the defendant changes the document to include other information , such as ” Court decisions that involved Chayer ” (Exhibit P-21, page 102).

[27 ] On January 10, 2010, the defendant inserted the photograph of the applicant on its site with several links (Exhibit P -23, page 107) .

[28] On 20 January 2010 , the defendant makes a statement entitled ” journalist Eric Messier launches media monitoring where he talks , including his most” recent case “about ” gay journalist and Montreal , Roger -Luc Chayer, repeatedly condemned by the Quebec Press Council , the highest body of journalistic ethics “(Exhibit P -24, page 109).

[29 ] The respondent sees transmit this communiqué on a European site called Categorynet .

[30] On 26 January 2010, the defendant added to his paper entitled: ” plants fake diplomas ” (Exhibit P -27, page 125) always with a link related to the applicant.

[31] After further additions or changes (Exhibit P -31), February 15, 2010 , the defendant, in a section called “records” , juxtaposes the headings ” United States : a business scam ” ” Quebec : Ville- Marie Academy created by Roger -Luc Chayer is denounced by the Ministry of Education. “(Exhibit P-32, page 148).

[32] Throughout February and March 2010 , the defendant continues to publish on its website the document relating to Chayer, and with or without modifications.

[33 ] On March 21, 2010, the defendant using the site ” red or blue pill ? ” Place a picture of a monkey next to a text that begins with the words:” Roger -Luc Chayer delirium March … “(Exhibit P-44 , page 207).

[34 ] The applicant demonstrates that seeing this photograph of a monkey added to his name he feels great humiliation.

[35 ] A few days later, the defendant still on the site ” red pill – blue pill ” , connects the caller’s name to the words “false , harassment , criminal charges … fascism. “(Exhibit P- 55, page 305) .

[36] On 3 May 2010, the applicant appealed to another attorney to deliver to the respondent a second letter (Exhibit P -57) that remains unanswered .

[37 ] On June 7, 2010, the defendant again transmits the document about the applicant again with variations.

[38] Meanwhile , the applicant wrote to several site managers to try to halt the spread of the document since it is found even in China.

[39] In September , the plaintiff instituted the present proceedings against the defendant .

[40] Nevertheless, the defendant not only did not withdraw the document, but it adds the same to say about the musical career of the applicant.

[41] On 11 February 2011, the Tribunal issued an order to safeguard the parties’ consent , which reads in part :

” ORDERS the parties to withdraw within twenty- four (24 ) hours all articles published on the websites under their control, on the other, to include the TAGS ² ² and other reference links to other sites or engines research ;

ORDERS the parties not to publish an article on the other party by June 10, 2011 , on any medium whatsoever , computer or other . ”

[42 ] The applicant notes that, despite this safeguard order multiple items on a website controlled by the defendant remain accessible ( Exhibits P -82 to P -89) .

[43 ] On June 9, 2011, the Tribunal shall act in the defendant’s acquiescence to the conclusions of the motion for interlocutory injunction.

[44] However , the applicant finds that the defendant , despite the judgment , does not remove websites all documents about it (Exhibit P -91 package ) .

[45] Finally, the applicant explains that many of the applications initiating proceedings (Exhibit D -1 ) to which the defendant refers concern only actions on account for services rendered by him or his companies.

[46] For his part, the defendant says he has three trades over the years.

[47] From 1989 to 2011 , as a journalist, he wrote some 3,000 items both in newspapers and on the Internet .

[48 ] Second, from 1993 to present , he teaches communication skills . Moreover, he holds a bachelor’s degree in psycho- sociology of communication and school and social adjustment

[49] Finally, as a Masters in International Relations , during those years , he acted as a consultant in international communication .

[50] He met the plaintiff in 1995 when he wants to write for the magazine RG .

[51] Four years later , the applicant shall publish a critical article against him in the journal The National. He decided to lodge a complaint against the applicant in the Quebec Press Council (Exhibit D- 7), which retains only a part of the complaint for a single inaccuracy in the article.

[52] The defendant has no contact with the applicant until 2009.

[53] In September 2009, as a citizen and not a journalist, he decided to publish on its website a record (Exhibit P-3) about the applicant.

[54] He took this decision in response to the actions of the applicant who, according to him, multiply court proceedings, clog the judicial system and causes stress to many defendants.

[55] It takes the trouble to insert comments (Exhibit P-3, page 7) , add the word “real” to distinguish the Press Council of Quebec Press Council of Quebec gay (Exhibit P -3 , page 8). When he speaks of denunciation, it refers to the decisions of the Quebec Press Council (Exhibit P-3, page 8). It inserts “street Bourbonnière ” (Exhibit P-3, page 7) to decide any other individual with the same name as the applicant.

[56 ] The record refers to the declaration of reciprocal waivers and out of court settlement in the case ALGI (Exhibit P -1) because the plaintiff carries this procedure to some people on the pretext that this regulation is binding .

[57] He therefore wants to explain to these people that it is not.

[58] Also in this case, the defendant speaks of ” failed attempt Roger -Luc Chayer muzzle the press ” (Exhibit P-3, page 8) and , rather than put a link to the judgment in question (Exhibit P -6) , it creates a link to an article on this subject published in the magazine Fugues (Exhibit P- 7, page 29).

[59] For him , the reader will better understand the content of the article in Fugues that the judgment itself.

[60] With regard to his comment about the applicant interpreting the Marseillaise (Exhibit P -4 ), the defendant states that it is a joke because it is funny that the applicant is placed before the National Assembly to interpret the national anthem.

[61 ] The respondent submits that a website requires updates, hence the many changes to the original document (Exhibit P -3).

[62 ] In this context , he decided to add the street address of the applicant (Exhibit P10, page 39) found in a public telephone directory.

[63] In the version of 17 December 2009 ( Exhibit P -15, page 65) , he juxtaposes the applicant’s name , the family name ” Lacelle ” because it asks about some identities used by the applicant.

[ 64] For the defendant , his goal is always to protect the public interest.

[65] Eleven days later, he added a link titled ” Chayer tribute to André Gagnon ” (Exhibit P-17 , page 73) because the applicant is then dispute with André Gagnon.

[66] Also in this version, he wrote: ” Chayer attack a community organization ( ALGI ) but dropped out after six years ” (Exhibit P-17 , page 74) .

[67] According to his information, the applicant is proposing that the withdrawal of where the word ” abandon “. However , it does not control the information.

[68] On 5 January 2010, the defendant wrote: “As for your bipolar condition , this is actually something that belongs to you … ” (Exhibit P-20 , page 89) . It does not check the existence of such a diagnosis and can not give a reason for reference.

[69] In the version of January 21, 2010 (Exhibit P-25 ), the defendant explained that he speaks of ” continuing gag ” (Exhibit P-25 , page 113) because the applicant pursues small claims after complaint Press Council of Quebec.

[70] In this document, the following page (Exhibit P -25, page 114) , the defendant, after the title ” He plays ” before the National Assembly “( sic) , it’s interesting ! “Writes that” … (the applicant) was charged there a few years ago to use the logo fraudulently UIPF … “(Exhibit P-25 , page 114) . In this regard, it states that it has no reliable source , but based on hearsay .

[71 ] About the use of the picture of a monkey (Exhibit P -44, page 207 ), the defendant asserts that its purpose is to illustrate the comical aspect of the situation then exists between the applicant and itself rather than comparing the applicant for this animal.

[72 ] On March 26, 2010, the defendant as ” Roger -Luc Chayer discusses his collaborators suspected liars ” (Exhibit P- 55, page 305) . He maintains that he uses the word ” collaborators” in the meaning of ” employee ” and not in the pejorative sense often associated with the word “collaborator “.

[ 73] For this article, it does not contact the applicant to obtain his version because he has no confidence in him. He added that he understood that if the text came from a journalist , not a private citizen , he would have a duty to contact the applicant . Indeed, a journalist should check his sources .

[74] In addition , the file is on a web site, it sees no need to use or check the version of the applicant, as he is a specialist in communications including the use of the internet.

[75 ] The respondent acknowledges that the author of the three comments that appear in the document (Exhibit P- 64, pages 455 and 456). He argues that they reflect the truth.

[76] While it is located in Senegal , his attorney advised the safeguard order of 11 February 2011 . He tries this faraway place to withdraw the texts internet order order him to do.

[77] For him, it puts the file on the internet about the applicant amounts to an anthology.

[78] He reiterated his contention that any reader must understand that this issue is not the work of a journalist , and this , especially since it ends up on its website .

[79] He reiterated that his goal in 2009 , inserting on its website document regarding withdrawals and out of court settlement in the case ALGI is to warn the public about the fact that , according to him , the applicant is used wrongly and without reserve this document to intimidate some people.

[80] In the version of January 5th 2010 document (Exhibit P -20, page 87) , the words “media file ” refer to the file on its website since September 2009.

[81] He is the author of the document ” news -news ” (Exhibit P-36 , page 171). This document , within its editorial discretion , includes texts that are not necessarily him.

ISSUES

[82] The applicant submits that the document published by the defendant , both in its original form or in amended versions , is defamatory and caused him great harm .

[83 ] The respondent , citing freedom of expression , says the document placed on its website this fair and reasonable comments, is in no way defamatory and is only intended to protect the public interest .

[84] The issues can be summarized as follows:

1) A document issued by the defendant is it defamatory ?

2 ) If yes, the defendant commits a foul that it undermines the reputation of the plaintiff ? Is it willful misconduct ?

3 ) Is there a causal link between the fault and the damages claimed ?

4 ) If yes , what are the damages ?

LAW

[85 ] Sections 4 and 5 of the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the right to reputation :

” 4 . Everyone has the right to the safeguard of his dignity , honor and reputation .

5 . Everyone has the right to respect for his private life. ”

[86 ] Sections 3, 7 and 35 C.C.Q. enact that :

” 3 . Everyone is entitled to rights of personality, such as the right to life, the inviolability and integrity of his person, in respect of his name , reputation and privacy.

These rights are inalienable

7 . No rights can be exercised for injuring another or in an excessive and unreasonable manner which is contrary to the requirements of good faith.

35 . Everyone has the right to respect for his reputation and privacy.

No prejudice can not be brought to the privacy of a person without the latter ‘s consent or without the law allows. ”

[87] On the other hand , the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that freedom of expression is inserted among the fundamental freedoms:

” 3 . Every person has fundamental freedoms , including freedom of conscience, freedom of religion , freedom of opinion , freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association. ”

[88] Thus , the Court must balance these two rights, the right to reputation and the right to freedom of expression.

[89] On this subject , the Supreme Court wrote:

( iii) The civil liability regime

“The Quebec civil law does not provide specific remedies for damage to reputation . The basis of an action for defamation in Quebec is art . 1457 C.C.Q. laying down general rules on liability . Thus, in an action for defamation, the plaintiff must prove , on a balance of probabilities, the existence of damage , a fault and causation , as in the case of any other civil action , delict or quasi-delict .

To prove the first element of civil liability, the existence of an injury, the plaintiff must convince the judge that the impugned remarks were defamatory. The concept of defamation has been defined in several ways over the years. In general , it is recognized that defamation “consists in the communication of spoken or written that are losing respect or consideration for someone or that or that prompt him unfavorable or unpleasant feelings .”

The defamatory nature is determined by applying an objective standard. It must , in other words , whether an ordinary person would believe that the words , taken as a whole , brought discredit on the reputation of another person . In this regard, it should be noted that the words may be defamatory by the idea that they explicitly or by innuendo that emerge express . In Beaudoin c . Press Ltd. , [1998] R.J.Q. 204 ( C.S. ) , p. 211, the judge Hallman summarizes the steps to follow to determine whether particular remarks are defamatory :

“The form of expression of libel matter , which is the result in the reader’s mind that creates the offense .” The allegation or imputation defamatory may be direct, or it may be indirect ” through simple allusion , insinuation or irony, or occur in a conditional form, doubtful , hypothetical .” Often the allegation or imputation “is conveyed to the reader through a simple insinuation of an interrogative sentence , the reference to a rumor , the reference information that has leaked to the public, juxtaposition of unrelated facts together have a semblance of relationship between them.

The words must also be interpreted in context. Thus, ” it is not possible to isolate a passage from a text to complain if all sheds a different light on this passage .” Conversely, ” it does not matter that its components are true if all of the text that is contrary to reality message.” It may actually distort the truth or reality by half- truths, misleading , omissions , etc. . “We must consider a newspaper or a radio program as a whole , phrases and words must be interpreted in relation to each other .

However, comments deemed defamatory need not be civilly liable for them . It will , moreover, that the applicant demonstrates that the author of the remarks made ​​a mistake . In their treaty Liability (5th ed. 1998) , J.-L. Baudouin and P. Deslauriers point , to p. 301-302 , that the blame for defamation may result from two types of pipes, the malicious , the other merely negligent :

The first is that the defendant knowingly , in bad faith, with malicious intent to attack the reputation of the victim and tries to ridicule , humiliate , expose to hatred or contempt public or group . The second result of behavior which will harm is absent, but the defendant has nevertheless undermined the reputation of the victim by his recklessness, negligence , or carelessness his impertinence . The two lines are a civil fault are entitled to compensation , unless there is no difference between them in terms of law. In other words , it should refer to the ordinary rules of civil liability and resolutely abandon the misconception that defamation is only the result of an act of bad faith where there was intent to harm .

From the description of these two types of conduct, it is possible to identify three situations may engage the responsibility of the author of defamatory words . The first occurs when a person makes unpleasant remarks about with respect to third while knowing the wrong. Such statements can not be made ​​maliciously , with the intent to harm others . The second situation occurs when a person spreads unpleasant things about others when it should know wrong. A reasonable person will generally refrain from giving unfavorable information about others if it has reason to doubt their veracity. Finally, the third, often overlooked , is the person who keeps slanderous , without cause unfavorable , but truthful statement , in respect of a third party.

Thus, in Quebec civil law , the provision of false information is not necessarily at fault. In contrast , the transmission of truthful information can sometimes be a challenge . Here we find a significant difference between civil law and common law where the falsity of the defamation involved ( tort of defamation ) . However, even in civil law, the truth of what can be a way of proving the absence of fault in circumstances where the public interest is at stake

In all cases , the assessment of fault is a contextual question of facts and circumstances. In this regard, it is important to remember that the action in defamation involves two fundamental values: freedom of expression and the right to reputation. This Court has long recognized the importance of the first of these values ​​in a democratic society. “[1]

[90 ] The Supreme Court added :

“The defense of qualified privilege is not exclusive to municipal officials . It applies whenever a person who provides information has an interest or a legal , social or moral obligation to pass on to another person who has a mutual interest in receiving them. This is particularly the case when an employer or teacher gives references to an employee or student or when a journalist published in the public interest defamatory information he honestly believes true. “[2]

[91 ] Moreover , the Court agrees with the opinion of Ms. Blondin judge to the effect that the definition of defamation does not change from one medium to another

” [40] The definition of the term” defamation ” does not change, regardless of the medium used. Thus, courts have recognized that online defamation should be treated as any other form of defamation , it is done through newspapers , radio or television :

[248 ] The words are powerful tools of communication: they destroy a reputation in a short time while sometimes it took years to build. The Internet is a powerful tool Released: communication has almost no boundaries. Freedom of expression is a core value of primary importance but respect for the dignity and reputation of the person is equally important. Those who speak or write and those who spread on the Internet should realize . “[3]

(Emphasis added)

ANALYSIS

The document published by the defendant is it defamatory ?

[92] To answer this question, the Court must consider whether an ordinary person would believe that the document published by the defendant , as a whole , discredits the plaintiff’s reputation .

[93] Before answering this question, remember the words of our colleague , Mr. Senecal judge :

“The form of expression of libel matter , which is the result in the reader’s mind that creates the offense .” The allegation or imputation defamatory may be direct, or it may be indirect ” through simple allusion , insinuation or irony, or occur in a conditional form, doubtful , hypothetical .” Often the allegation or imputation “is conveyed to the reader through a simple insinuation of an interrogative sentence , the reference to a rumor , the reference information that has leaked to the public, juxtaposition of unrelated facts together have a semblance of relationship between them. “[4]

[ 94] The Tribunal is of the opinion that the document prepared and published by the defendant about the plaintiff, taken in its entirety and analyzed in the context of its dissemination by the defendant, is defamatory .

[95 ] What is the context ?

[96] In July 2001, a denunciation (Exhibit P- 3, pages 11 and following ) against the applicant was born.

[97] This replica instituting proceedings against ALGI and some of the persons signing the denunciation.

[98] Although the defendant is a signatory , it is not listed as a defendant in proceedings brought by the applicant. In November 2007, operates out of court settlement (Exhibit P -1) approved by the Superior Court (Exhibit P -2).

[99 ] Almost two years later, in September 2009, the defendant puts on his website that he calls ” folder Roger -Luc Chayer ” (Exhibit P-3, page 6 et seq.)

[100 ] The respondent structure document as follows: under the title already mentioned , it writes : ” a nuisance to society and justice.”

[101] Then, before quoting the text of the denunciation of July 2001 , it inserts in bold , the following two comments of his own:

“This termination is to serve the public interest against Roger -Luc Chayer ( Bourbonnière Street , Montreal ) , a self-proclaimed journalist , repeatedly blamed by his peers and is recognized for having abused the justice system Quebec to pursue a large number of people and organizations .

The justice system in Quebec has decided there is some time to take measures to curb abuse of this individual , but without complete success. ”

[102] After these two comments, follows the original text of the denunciation.

[103] Then the defendant , after the list of signatories of the information, makes with other comments, always his own, grouped under the sub-heading ” Committee on Legal LGBT communities : ROGER -LUC CHAYER publicly denounced , attempt roger -luc chayer to muzzle the press. ” (emphasis added)

[104] Finally, the defendant includes links which , more often than not, are empty. Moreover, it fails to present links to a reader to read the judgments themselves.

[105] The Court finds that reading the document , it is very difficult, if not impossible, to differentiate between the original text of the termination in July 2001 and additions by the defendant in September 2009.

[106] One thing is certain : the organization and presentation of the document suggest to readers that the courts qualify , in fact, the applicant nuisance, but they can not stop .

[107] On 14 September 2009 , after the premiere of the document, the applicant in writing by registered mail to the defendant to withdraw the document containing false information mail.

[108] then start life put online by the defendant amended versions of the document, each version adding comments such as: “heavy folder on Roger -Luc Chayer ” (Exhibit P-10, page 38 ), ” It plays to the national Assembly ” , too funny ! (Exhibit P-10, page 39), ” Chayer is attacking the body ALGI support, he withdraws after eroded bone for six years ” (Exhibit P-10, page 39), without forgetting the juxtaposition of the defendant to a picture of a monkey (Exhibit P -44, page 207) , and the association of the name of the applicant to the regime of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein (Exhibit P -28, page133 ) .

[109] These are just a few examples of how the defendant creates and launches what he calls the applicant’s file.

[110 ] The respondent submits that it is in the public interest .

[111] The Tribunal is of the opinion that it is not. Rather, it is a plan of attack against the applicant for the reader sees in him an aggressive person , constantly at war against other individuals or groups , monopolizing court time by its legal sagas.

[112] Not only the titles and phrases used by the defendant are they derogatory , but , again, their arrangements are biased .

[113] In sum, with catchy headlines , innuendo or malicious juxtapositions , summaries or incomplete citations of court decisions involving the claimant without the reader can , of itself, read in full the decisions themselves , references to SLAPP lawsuits alleged the defendant creates in the reader a belief that the applicant is a querulous , quarrelsome and a surplus is not a clown.

[114] It is clear that the document assembled by the defendant has the effect of losing the esteem and consideration of readers to the plaintiff and to encourage him against adverse or unpleasant feelings.

[115] In sum, the Tribunal has no doubt that ” ordinary person would believe that the record made by the defendant, as a whole , discredits the plaintiff’s reputation .”

Are there fault of the defendant ? If yes , is it intentional ?

[116] The plaintiff has the burden to prove fault on the part of the defendant.

[117] As mentioned , the authors Baudouin and Deslauriers write such a fault can result from malicious or simply negligent driving , causing the Supreme Court in the judgment cited Prud’homme , identify three situations engage the responsibility of the author of the libel . Repeat these words of the Supreme Court :

“From the description of these two types of driving , it is possible to identify three situations may engage the responsibility of the author of defamatory words . The first occurs when a person makes unpleasant remarks about with respect to third while knowing the wrong. Such statements can not be made ​​maliciously , with the intent to harm others . The second situation occurs when a person spreads unpleasant things about others when it should know wrong. A reasonable person will generally refrain from giving unfavorable information about others if it has reason to doubt their veracity. Finally, the third, often overlooked , is the person who keeps slanderous , without cause unfavorable , but truthful statement , in respect of a third party. “[5]

[118] The Tribunal is of the opinion that the preponderance of the evidence is to the effect that the defendant knowingly wants to tackle the plaintiff’s reputation and certainly ridicule and humiliate to the readers of his website.

[119] Thus, the defendant is the first to admit that intends to put an end to what he called bullying by the applicant with regard to several people that , according to the applicant , is in the public interest .

[120 ] However, the defendant shall submit to the Court any evidence of similar intimidation experienced by a person either nor does it put in evidence that the applicant uses the declaration of reciprocal waivers and out of court settlement (Exhibit P -1 ) duly approved (Exhibit P -2 ) to attempt to silence anyone .

[121 ] Counsel for the defendant is , moreover, the first to recognize argument.

[122 ] The evidence , overall , found that the defendant , on the basis of real and true elements , such as the statement out of court settlement (Exhibit P -1) or the various decisions of the Press Council of Quebec ( Exhibits D -7 to D-10) , is used as a starting point for the paper , but make sure to submit all unfavorably, slanderous even the plaintiff .

[123] The Court finds that the defendant did not merely distort the truth in reference to judicial decisions, which stem from the professional activities of the applicant as a journalist, but also speaks of the field of music , other occupation the applicant still there trying to ridicule and humiliate .

[124 ] The Tribunal sees no link between the defendant claims to the effect that the applicant is trying to intimidate and silence some people and its decision to refer to the fact that the applicant interprets the Marseillaise before the National Assembly . The gesture itself is public, but the defendant presents to attack the reputation of the plaintiff .

[125 ] The respondent can pretend it ‘s just a joke , as the association monkey, it remains that all fits into the whole document consisting defendant against the plaintiff .

[126 ] The Tribunal is of the opinion that, in the overall context of the facts in evidence , the plaintiff ‘s right to claim to be a victim of wrongful conduct by the defendant.

[127 ] The respondent submits that merely exercising his right to freedom of expression and the comments in the document are intended to be fair and honest.

[128 ] The Tribunal did not accept this contention.

[129] The Tribunal does not find this objectivity is necessary in terms of fair comment . Instead, by combining , for example , as a dictator Saddam Hussein to the applicant , the defendant ignored this objectivity.

[130] In addition, since there is no evidence of intimidation or attempted gagging by the applicant for some people it is, the Court can not conclude that the document assembled by the defendant may interest people in general or specific individuals .

[131] Also in relation to the argument of freedom of expression, the Court observes that Justice Cory of the Supreme Court wrote in Hill :

” Democracy has always recognized and cherished the fundamental importance of the individual. That importance must , in turn , based on the good reputation. This good repute which enhances the sense of value and dignity of a person , can also be quickly and completely destroyed by false allegations. And tarnished by libel can seldom regain its former luster. A democratic society has a vested interest in ensuring that its members can enjoy a good reputation and protect it as long as they are worthy. “[6]

[132] In seeking to act as a judge , the defendant invests a mission supposedly for the benefit of the public interest and enjoying the freedom of expression. However, the entire testimony of the defendant expressed his bias against the applicant which he describes as a character abusing the judicial system and wanting to silence any opponent .

[133] The Tribunal must conclude malicious intent on the part of the defendant to the plaintiff .

[134] It is therefore an intentional foul .

Causation fault – damage

[135] The foregoing amply demonstrates the causal link between the willful misconduct and the damages claimed .

DAMAGE

[136] In assessing damages, the Court must consider the following:

- The severity of the remarks in the document built by the defendant;

- The dissemination of the document as a quantitative and qualitative point of view;

- The applicant’s identity , in other words , social status and occupation;

- The identity of the defendant;

- The conduct of the defendant after the institution of proceedings.

[137] Any defamation is of a serious nature itself.

[138] At Instance although applicant documents establish that circulates until China by against omits establish even approximately, numbers and kind people accessing that sites Respondent .

[139] The applicant states that he lives difficult these attacks against him by the defendant and by trying many ways to stop the spread . By cons , it has no other evidence to prove a violation of his social status, an obstacle to the exercise of his profession.

[140] In sum , the evidence for damage is rather general .

[141] Thus, although the plaintiff claims to moral damages the sum of $ 25,000 , the Court awarded him this title $ 5000 .

[142] He also asked in punitive damages , $ 15,000 for violations , in particular, Articles 4 and 5 of the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms , plus an additional $ 30,000 for violation of safeguard Order of 11 February 2011 and pursuant to Article 131 of the Charter.

[143 ] Section 1621 C.C.Q. states that:

” 1621. Where the law provides for the granting of punitive damages , they may not exceed , in value , which is sufficient to fulfill their preventive function.

They enjoy taking account of all relevant circumstances, including the gravity of the debtor’s fault , his patrimonial situation, the extent of the relief to which he is already liable to the creditor and , if necessary, because the support of the repair is payment , in whole or in part , performed by a third party. ”

[144 ] With respect to punitive damages , our colleague , Judge Blondin wrote :

[93] The unlawful recognized by the Charter entitles the victim reached not only the right to ” the cessation of the infringement ” and ” repair the damage” suffered , but also in case of ” intentional interference ” , the right to claim from the infringer ” of punitive damages ”

49 . Unlawful interference with a right or recognized by this Charter freedom gives the victim the right to obtain the cessation of such interference and compensation for the moral or material prejudice resulting therefrom.

In case of unlawful and intentional interference, the court may also order the person responsible for punitive damages .

[94] There are three conditions under this provision :

§ action for punitive damages can not be incidental to a principal action seeking condemnation of moral or material prejudice, meaning , there must be identification of a constitutive behavior fault liability ;

§ must be a breach recognized by the Quebec Charter right ;

§ such interference must be unlawful and intentional . ”

…

[97 ] The Supreme Court defines what is meant by unlawful and intentional interference in the leading case of Quebec (Public Curator) c . National Union of Employees of the St. Ferdinand hospital:

“Accordingly, it will be unlawful and intentional within the meaning of the second paragraph of art reached. 49 of the Charter when the perpetrator of intentional interference has a state of mind that implies a desire or intent to cause the consequences of his misconduct or if he acts with full knowledge of the consequences , immediate and natural or at least extremely probable that the conduct will cause . This test is not as strict as specific intent, but exceeds , however, the mere negligence.

[98] Baudouin and Jobin and summarize the state of the law on the question:

” [T] he Supreme Court reiterated the principle that the result of the wrongful conduct must have been intended for the infringement to be characterized as intentional . However, she interpreted this condition as may include simple knowledge of the immediate and natural consequences , or at least extremely probable that the misconduct will result in a test which goes far beyond mere negligence but falls short of the intent to cause damage , and is applied flexibly by other courts “. [ 7]

(Emphasis added)

[145] The Court does not hesitate to say that these three conditions exist in this case.

[146] Need I remind you that the defendant , as a communications specialist , must know that his misconduct disseminating the document both in its original form with additions, will be “immediate and natural consequences , or at least extremely probable ” to the plaintiff .

[147 ] Judge Blondin added on the portion of the punitive damages :

” [110] To fix the quantum , the court will consider the following criteria:

Ø The preventive aspect , punitive or deterrent of such damages ;

Ø The conduct of the offender and the seriousness of the offense ;

Ø The injury ;

Ø The benefits to the offender ;

Ø The ability to pay of the offender or his assets ;

Ø The quantum of compensatory damages or the extent of the relief to which he is already liable to the creditor;

Ø The unequal power relationship , including resources , between the victim and the wrongdoer ;

Ø The fact that the support payment of the damages is wholly or partly assumed by a third party . “[8]

[148 ] In this instance , the severity of the defendant’s fault is obvious.

[149] Before the Court, the defendant continues to assert that it is in the public interest and as a private citizen , not as a journalist, he wants to prevent the applicant from silence or intimidate others. However, as mentioned, it has no concrete evidence of such actions by the applicant.

[150 ] Moreover, the evidence regarding the financial situation of the defendant is minimal.

[151] This being so, the Tribunal is of opinion that it is appropriate to allocate a sum of $ 5,000 in punitive damages for violation of Articles 4 and 5 of the Quebec Charter.

[152] For cons , the Tribunal does not accept the application under Article 131 of the Charter.

[153] Indeed, even if after the issuance of the order to safeguard the defendant did not fully eliminate the paper ‘s website , the evidence is to the effect that tries to run , but some problems because he is then in Africa.

[154] Finally, the applicant sought reimbursement of its legal fees totaling more than $ 20,000 since the beginning of the proceedings.

[155 ] Counsel for the plaintiff insists that the defendant, at the last minute, agrees to submit to the request for a safeguard order scheduled for two days of trial.

[156 ] In light of the remarks of Mr. Dalphond JA in Genex [9] , the Court considers that nothing could force the defendant to confess judgment and, in addition , a debate on the nature and severity of the fault, the extent of the damage was needed.

[157 ] In the circumstances , the Tribunal rejects the application for reimbursement of court fees.

APPLICATION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

[158 ] The respondent argues that the Court can not grant the request for two main reasons : first , the delay by the applicant to submit the application and secondly, according to the theory of “clean hands” , the applicant itself responds not this criterion.

[159] Regarding the delay, the Court did not accept this ground.

[160] Indeed, even if the defendant puts the document on its website in September 2009, the applicant shall bring its procedures a year later , it remains that during those twelve months, applicant first attempts by itself to convince the defendant to withdraw any website then before its failure, its mandate prosecutors to obtain the same result, unfortunately without success.

[161] With regard to the criterion of “clean hands” , the defendant claims that the press (Exhibit D -2 package ) issued by the applicant in reply to the document, demonstrate the merits of this argument.

[162 ] The Tribunal does not endorse this second ground .

[163] Nothing can prevent the emission of these provided by the applicant , communiqués , according to the Court , are not defamatory and do not exceed the ” very reasonable and measured ” in the words of the defendant himself even in its counterclaim.

[164] Thus , the Court will host the permanent injunction the plaintiff.

FOR THESE REASONS , THE COURT:

[165] GRANTS the motion to institute proceedings ;

[166] ORDERS the defendant , Eric Messier remove, within thirty -five (35 ) days of the date of this judgment , all the defamatory articles ( Parts P-3, P-4, P-9 , P – 10 , P-17 , P -19, P-21, P-22 , P -23, P-24 , P -25, P-26 , P -27 , P -28, P-29, P-30, P- 31 , P -32 , P -34 , P -35 , P -36 , P -42 , P -43 , P -44 , P -53 , P -54 , P -55 , P -58 , P -62 , P -64 , P -66 , P -68 , P -69 , P -70 , P -71 , P -72, P-82 , P -83 , P- 84, P-85 , P -86 , P- 87 , P -88 , P -89 and P -91 ) in relation to the applicant , Roger -Luc Chayer published on some websites or some media whatsoever;

[167] ORDERS the defendant , Eric Messier, cease to express or publish on some medium whatsoever , comments , articles or identical to those already issued (Exhibits P-3 , P-4 defamatory , P- 9, P-10, P-17 , P -19, P-21, P-22 , P -23, P-24 , P -25, P-26 , P -27 , P -28, P-29, P-30 , P -31 , P -32 , P -34 , P -35 , P -36 , P -42 , P -43 , P -44 , P -53 , P -54 , P -55 , P – 58, P -62 , P -64 , P -66 , P -68 , P -69 , P -70 , P -71 , P -72, P-82 , P -83 , P -84 , P- 85 P -86 , P -87 , P -88 , P -89 and P -91 ) in relation to the applicant , Roger -Luc Chayer ;

[168] ORDERS the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of $ 10,000 with interest and the additional indemnity under Article 1619 of the CCQ a sum of $ 5,000 from the congregation and from the judgment sum of $ 5,000 ;

[169] WITH COSTS ;

[170] DISCLAIMS toll counterclaim .

__________________________________

MARC DE Wever , J.C.S.

Claude Chamberland

Asselin Chamberland Lawyers

Solicitors for the plaintiff

I Jérôme Dupont- Rachiele

Ferland Marois Lanctot sn

Solicitors for the defendant

Hearing dates:

21, 22 , 23 and 24 May 2013

[1] Prud’homme c . Prud’homme, [ 2002] 4 R.C.S. 663 , p. 683-686 .

[2] Id. 691 .

[3] Corriveau c . Canoe inc. and Martineau , 2010 QCCS 3396 , p. 8 to 30 .

[4] Beaudoin c . Press Ltd. , [1998] R.J.Q. 204 , p. 211 .

[5 ] Id Note 1 , p. 685 .

[6] Hill c . Church of Scientology of Toronto, [ 1995] 2 SCR 1130 , para. 108.

[7] Cited in footnote 3, p. 15 and 16 to 30 .

[8] Id. 17 and 18 to 30 .

[9] Genex Communications inc. c . Quebec association of the music industry , entertainment and video, 2009 QCCA 2201 , p. 61 and 62 to 63 .

Latimes

The Supreme Court gave a generally skeptical hearing to a recreational pilot from San Francisco who wants damages from the government for disclosing his HIV status to the Federal Aviation Administration.

The case before the court Wednesday began in 2002, when the FAA heard a report of a pilot who had hidden his severe medical condition when he renewed his license to fly. Agents decided to check the records of 45,000 pilots in Northern California.

They learned from the Social Security Administration that Stanmore Cooper had obtained long-term disability benefits in 1995 because of his HIV condition. A year earlier, he had reapplied for his pilot’s license but failed to disclose his medical condition to the FAA. At the time, his illness may well have prevented him from renewing his license had it been revealed.

Cooper’s pilot’s license was revoked and he was charged with making false statements to the government. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and was fined $1,000.

Cooper then sued the FAA for violating the Privacy Act, which permits claims for “actual damages.” Lower courts have been split for decades over whether these damages are limited to monetary losses or can also include claims for mental distress.

Justice Antonin Scalia said the 1974 law “goes far beyond” other privacy laws because it included instances where private records were not revealed to the public. Several justices joined Scalia in suggesting it was unlikely Congress wanted to open the door to damage suits for thousands of people who claim mental distress at learning their records had been examined by two agencies.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco had ruled against Cooper and said the law did not include damages for emotional distress. But the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and ruled last year that emotional damages, if proven, were included.

Obama administration lawyers appealed in FAA vs. Cooper. They said Congress did not intend to expose the government to damage claims for emotional distress from thousands of people if two agencies shared records, or even Social Security numbers.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor disagreed with the administration’s lawyer. They said the hurt suffered from an invasion of privacy was usually emotional or mental, not monetary. A person who is “subjected to embarrassment and humiliation” has suffered damage, Ginsburg said.

Raymond Cardozo, a San Francisco lawyer for Cooper, said his client would have to prove that he had suffered mental distress in order to win.

But most of the justices sounded as though they were inclined to limit the scope of the damages to monetary losses, such as the loss of a job or medical expenses.

Sfist

Remember this case, in which the National Center for Lesbian Rights took on a discrimination case on behalf of three allegedly straight players on San Francisco’s D2, a softball team that is part of the San Francisco Gay Softball League? The players got kicked off the team after their sexuality was called into question during league play, and the lesbian lawyers found this highly offensive. Challengers on the Atlanta Mudcats team claimed the players were straight ringers, and that this violated the rule stating that there could only be two non-gay players on the team. Well, a court has now sided with the three players, saying that they’re bisexual if they say they are, and the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance has to pay them each an undisclosed sum of money, and restore to their team the second-place trophy they would have won in the 2008 tournament.

The lesbian lawyers say this is a victory for bisexuals everywhere, and these poor put-upon bisexual lads shall suffer no more. The league has re-written their rules now to allow bisexual players, but they are still limiting full-time breeders to two per team.

But if we know gay men — and we do! — those players from the Atlanta team are probably still muttering into their beers about how the three S.F. guys were about as bisexual as Lou Ferrigno.

Thge Spiritual Herald

WASHINGTON–New York’s approval of same-sex marriage is just the first round in what will be a lengthy and fractious heavyweight legal battle that will wind up in the laps of the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court next year.

ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero, who is gay himself, spelled out a robust list of lawsuits the organization has filed in states across the nation.

“We are in this for the long haul,” said Romero, “and we should have been taking the cases of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans long before now. But we are making up for it, and will not rest until all Americans are given equal treatment in marriage and every other respect no matter what their sexual orientation.”

Romero rattled off a rash of current lawsuits filed by the ACLU alleging that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause.

“No matter what happens at the state levels with these suits, we believe the entire issue will go to the U.S. Supreme Court next year,” said Romero. “Which is fine with us because we believe the Constitution is on our side.”

ACLU suits are active in California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York and many more are being prepared in a half-dozen more states, said Romero.

In addition to the legal wrangling, the emotional aspects of the hot-button issue are tearing apart liberal Protestant churches where some ministers are still quietly performing same-sex unions in defiance of church orders, putting their careers on the line.

Richard Harding, 85, a retired Methodist minister in Massachusetts, put it succinctly: “I have been performing gay marriages for years. It is a just thing to do.”

One church group that is split over the issue is the Methodists, where a growing number of pastors are saying they will defy the ban on marrying gays. Some ministers are even suggesting that the issue will cause a complete split into two denominations.

The Rev. Amy Del Long, 44, of Osceola, Wisc., who is a lesbian, said she willingly violates the church prohibition of marrying same-sex couples.

“I told my supervisors years ago that I was a lesbian and recently told them I would perform such weddings if asked,” she said. “It has not been easy, but I felt it was the right thing to do.” She faces charges that could lead to her suspension, but church elders would not discuss the matter.

Del Long is not alone in the Methodist ranks. Several hundred clergy members, active and retired, said they would perform gay marriages, according to unofficial surveys of clerics.

The progress that has been made by gays and lesbians on the legal front has not diminished the pain and suffering they go through to achieve their goal on the emotional front.

“It is a difficult road, but one we must travel to win our rights,” said Heather Mizeur, a Maryland state legislator who is openly gay. “We have been marching in the direction of legal marriages for some time now, and our goal is finally reachable.”

Mizeur, one of seven openly gay legislators in the Maryland House of Delegates, has been working to make the state the seventh to sign a gay marriage bill into law. Gov. Martin O’Malley said he would sign such a bill.

“Gay marriage is simply the human right to do what other married people take for granted, like granting protections to spouses for health insurance benefits and pensions as well as a host of other things, such as normal hospital visits if your partner gets sick,” Mizeur noted. “We are talking about humanity here.”

Lauren Long, a California divorcee who has been in a lesbian relationship for several years, spelled out the problem:

“When your partner is seriously ill, and a hospital official tells you that you cannot visit her because you are not a family member, it really hurts,” she said. “I know because it happened to me. Luckily someone on the hospital staff has some pity–and brains–and allowed me into the room of my partner.”

So these are the human events that often are overlooked as the same-sex union debate takes a legal turn.

But the denial of rights for gay partners does not hold water for many opponents of the unions.

A vehement argument against the unions is coming from formidable religions that have begun intense lobbying against gay marriage efforts– the Catholic, evangelical Baptist and Orthodox Jewish leaders who consider such a union a sin against God and the teachings of the Bible.

“Plain and simple, we don’t consider such unions as normal,” said a conservative Southern Baptist pastor. “Neither does the Bible.”

But a great many other denominations are coming to the defense of same-sex unions as a human right.

Such denominations as Methodists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians are being thrown into turmoil over the issue because more of them are beginning to support such unions, many quietly, however. Even the liberal clergy know that any support for same-sex unions puts their charities, hospitals and other social network institutions at risk.

Already, Catholic Charities has stopped participating in adoption services in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C, which approved same-sex unions, because they do not want children placed in homes of gay and lesbian couples.

There will be no give on either side, as the legal and spiritual apparatus is moving into high gear.

The states that currently allow marriages for gay and lesbian couples are New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, New York and Washington, D.C. And three states–Illinois, Hawaii and Delaware–created civil unions for same-sex couples this year.

One of the most important lawsuits on the issue is taking place in federal court in Nashville, Tenn., where a diverse coalition of the nation’s leading religions–Southern Baptists, Catholics, Mormons and Orthodox Jews–have filed a legal brief as friend of the court that says allowing homosexual marriages could adversely affect the children raised in such unions.

The brief states: “We have seen the enormous benefits that traditional male-female marriage imparts…and also have witnessed the substantial adverse consequences for children, parents and civil society that often flow from alternative household arrangement.”

The brief was filed after a landmark decision in Massachusetts struck down DOMA. “Striking down DOMA does not take the morality out of marriage debate,” the brief said.

The religious coalition is the largest group ever assembled on one issue. Besides the four faiths mentioned, the brief is also signed by the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Open Bible Churches, the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference, the Evangelical Free Church of America, the Brethren in Christ Church, and the Christian Missionary Alliance.

While the legal efforts grow, so do the pro-active campaigns of the religions and their conservative supporters.

The Washington-based political lobby, the National Organization for Marriage, whose sole purpose is to fight same-sex marriage efforts, has begun a blitz of lobbying the federal and state governments, including e-mails, phone calls and personal visits to lawmakers and voters.

Brian Brown, the president, says his organization will “spend many millions of dollars to reject and defeat gay and lesbian marriage supporters and that includes anyone in Congress or in state legislatures. The issue is that important to America families.”

Legal scholars are certain that the nation’s highest court will ultimately decide all the lawsuits that are being filed in dozens of states over same-sex unions.

“It is inevitable that the Supreme Court holds the final key to unlocking the door that provides equal opportunity for gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender Americans,” said Romero. “The New York legislature and governor provided us with a partial victory, but there is still a long road ahead.”

The same-sex issue touches the nerves of many Americans, including conservative religious leaders, top lawyers and civil rights scholars, political heavyweights on both sides of the aisle and–last but not least–the gay couples who seek equality under the law.

This transformation is what the problem is, say conservative religious and political leaders, who say the issue is dividing religions, putting impossible barriers into the process of marriage rights and doing something that the majority of Americans condemn.

Recognizing gay marriages is not going to happen in the Catholic Church, or the evangelical Baptist church or in conservative Jewish denominations—at least not in the foreseeable future, say religious scholars like Martin Marty, the respected professor of theology at the University of Chicago.

Marty is absolutely correct if you listen to Bishop Joseph Mattera, pastor of the Resurrection R.C. Church of Brooklyn, who is leading the lobbying against lesbian and gay unions.

“Marriage is between a man and a woman, period,” said Mattera, who is soliciting the help of the tea party members in Staten Island and other sections of New York.

Mattera heads the political advocacy group called Christ Covenant Coalition, and has assembled networks of hundreds of clergy of all faiths to combat the unions.

But more and more liberal pastors are accepting the new rules governing marriage, saying they are fair because many gay partners cannot participate in health care plans or wills or other legal benefits of marriage.

Hundreds of Methodist clergy from Illinois, Minnesota, New York and New England have signed statements in recent weeks asserting their willingness to marry gay couples in church. And many are today, even if they keep it quiet.

Those who do will be charged with violating denominational laws and are facing church trials. Penalties are defrocking or suspension from the ministry, but penalties are few and far between.

However, such unions are being performed all over the nation by legitimate clergy.

“We were married in an Episcopalian church in New York City by a priest,” said a gay lawyer who asked for anonymity, “and it was a beautiful ceremony attended by our families and friends. Just like a normal wedding, if you want to use that term. We don’t say ‘like’—we say it was a normal wedding.”

Such ceremonies are becoming common.

In Minnesota, the Rev. Bruce Robbins of the Hennepin Avenue United Methodist Church invited clergy to sign a statement saying they were willing to conduct any wedding, not just a heterosexual one. More than 70 pastors signed it, he said, along with hundreds of lay people who supported them.

“We have so many other tragedies in the world, like poverty and justice issues, that it is a shame we have to make this issue to be the center of the our efforts. It is an unfair law of the church, and we should reject it completely,” Robbins stated.

The chances of getting the Methodist Church to change its rules are remote. Rule changes must be approved by delegates at the church’s General Conference, held every four years. But because of a growing number of conservative Methodists from Africa, the Philippines and other regions, there would be great resistance to such a change.

NEWS / Steve Biron at the centre of what could be landmark case

Luna Allision January 2011

An HIV-positive man in Quebec City is in custody facing charges of aggravated sexual assault and aggravated assault for allegedly having bareback sex with 11 or more men between June and October 2010 despite knowing his poz status.
He faces up to 14 years in prison if the charges stick, but the story is not as simple as it would first seem.

Steve Biron, 32, first appeared on police radar Nov 5, 2010, when a fuck-friend of Biron’s came forward with a complaint against him, saying that Biron had lied about his HIV status before they had unprotected sex.

After processing the complaint, Quebec City police launched an investigation. They arrested Biron on Nov 22 and released a province-wide communiqué a week later, saying that he was being charged with aggravated assault and aggravated sexual assault and asking people to call the police if they had been in contact with Biron on the internet (Biron hooked up with most of the guys through gay411.com.) The communiqué, along with Biron’s picture, ran in most newspapers, on web-based news outlets and on several TV channels across Quebec.

“We asked the population to call us if [anybody] was involved with him,” says Sandra Dion, a communications agent with the Quebec City Police Service. “He was on the internet and everything, so the investigator believed he had many partners. We’re not allowed by law to talk about his health status, so we could not say he has HIV. That’s why we asked people to contact the police.”

But there are growing questions about the validity of the case and how it’s being handled.

During a Dec 22 court appearance, the public heard from the investigating officer in the case, Detective Sergeant Louis Lachance. While on the stand, Lachance confused case details, as well as several terms related to HIV and the gay community. He excused himself by saying he didn’t have his papers in front of him. Judge Chantale Pelletier, who was presiding, said, “Well, you must know the case?” Lachance replied that he wasn’t comfortable with the case.

That day, it also came to light that the original complainant in the Biron case has done time for fraud, extortion and breach of conditions. His entire criminal record — totalling more than 40 criminal acts — was read into the court record by Judge Pelletier during the Dec 22 hearing.

Biron’s lawyer at the time, Herman Bédard, decided not to present any of the scientific evidence he had at his disposal about the effects of the antiretroviral meds that his client had been on since being diagnosed with HIV in 2007, or about Biron’s undetectable viral load — both of which significantly lower the risk of HIV transmission and may have influenced the decision to go to trial.

“The rule in Canada is that someone can be prosecuted for not disclosing his or her HIV-positive status before engaging in a sexual act that represents a significant risk of HIV transmission,” says Cecile Kazatchkine, a policy analyst with the HIV/AIDS Legal Network. “So, the courts take into account whether there was or was not a significant risk of transmission. We know now that someone’s viral load will have an impact on HIV transmission. The lower the viral load, the [lower] the risk of transmission. The courts cannot ignore the science anymore. We’re not talking about elimination of the risk; we’re talking about [there not being] a significant risk.”

“It is actually a real bastardization of the justice system… sexual assault as a charge removes any accountability within this context for any of the claimants involved — specifically regarding their other sexual activities within our community,” says Mikiki, a Toronto-based HIV/AIDS activist. “Not only does it further HIV stigma and homophobia and fear around testing for dudes who don’t know their status, it also reinforces the need for poz guys to conceal our status out of fear of criminal prosecution and not the opposite.”

Recent decisions in the Quebec and Manitoba Courts of Appeal state that HIV-positive people like Biron, who have an undetectable viral load, are not required by law to disclose their HIV status before engaging in sex because there is no significant risk of HIV transmission — even when it comes to unprotected sex. It was ruled by both courts that an undetectable viral load or the careful use of a condom represented a low risk of transmission, though both court decisions avoided stating that either scenario would automatically cancel out legal liability.

The Manitoba decision also suggests that the nature of the disease has evolved due to availability of new treatments and that HIV is no longer a death sentence.

These points were mirrored in the Quebec Court of Appeal’s decision on Dec 10.

Scientific evidence related to treatment options and viral load will certainly be introduced in court as part of Biron’s defence, but the work of investigative journalist Roger-Luc Chayer of Gay Globe Media is likely to contribute significantly to Biron’s case as well.

Chayer started digging into the case after being approached by a family member of Biron’s.

“I wasn’t aware of the case, so I asked what was happening. They gave me a briefing about the arrest,” says Chayer. “I was not happy with what Mr Biron did. Somebody is trying to transmit AIDS? This is not a good thing in society. Let’s just say I didn’t have a positive feeling about it. But, I said, of course I’ll look at the documents because I want to know the story. Then I saw the written statements that the [alleged] victims made to the police.”

The online names of the alleged victims were listed in their statements, so Chayer decided to go to the Gay411 site and try to view their profiles. He soon found out that most of the guys who were bringing complaints against Biron were still active on the site and looking for hookups.

“That’s interesting because, when you read the victims’ statements, most of them said that they were traumatized and sick with anxiety,” says Chayer. “In my mind, I was wondering if they would go as far as to do the exact opposite of what they said in their [statements].

“I decided to contact them — not telling them I was a journalist, of course, undercover. I said, you know, my trip is to have bareback [sex]. I want to feel the skin. Don’t talk to me about any condoms. If you talk to me about condoms, I’ll turn you away. Most of them said yes. They didn’t ask me any questions about HIV. I printed every conversation. In their statements, they said that they [had] all questioned Mr Biron about that before having sex with him. They said he gave them a guarantee that he was negative. The problem is that none of them asked me about my HIV status. This happened two or three weeks after Biron was arrested, so it [doesn’t make any sense].”

Chayer’s exposé raised doubt about whether safer sex was something that Biron’s sexual partners were looking for in the first place. The evidence Chayer gathered has been subpoenaed by the court, and he has agreed to release the information in the interests of a fair trial.

“Mr Biron called me once from jail,” says Chayer. “He said to me that before the investigation was published, he was being beaten and harassed. His life in jail was a nightmare. People would cut [out] the newspaper articles about him and put them everywhere so the prisoners would read that and attack him. When the investigation showed that the [alleged] victims were very problematic, his quality of life got a lot better.”

Biron has been in custody since his arrest. After hearing the Crown prosecutor’s evidence on Dec 22, Judge Pelletier refused bail for the accused, saying that he posed a serious threat to public safety.

The accused has parted ways with his counsel and is now represented by another Quebec City lawyer, Denis Bernier.
Bernier will soon petition the court for the right to approach the Quebec Court of Appeals in the hopes of overriding the imprisonment order against Biron, but the process will take between one and three months.

Biron will appear in a Quebec City court Jan 31 for his preliminary hearing.

Steve Biron : Imprisoned in Quebec for having sex without a condom…

The importance of using the right words…

By Roger-Luc Chayer

edito@gglobetv.com

The worst sex scandal to strike within the walls of Quebec City since OPERATION SCORPION targeted juvenile prostitution has grabbed the world’s attention by targeting a gay man for supposedly reckless acts.

The facts are simple: Steve Biron, currently imprisoned in Quebec City, is accused of cruising the internet in order to have unprotected sex with gay men, despite knowing he had contracted HIV.

The simple premise and the questions raised by the case very clear: What is a “safe” sexual act, what is a “clean” person and, above all, what is “barebacking”, because the whole case rests on these “fads” in the gay community in general.

Before Gay Globe’s investigation went to press, the court issued a publication ban, so we are unable to name the so-called “victims”, however their identity is unimportant since their conduct in this affair is the object of a lawsuit.

Within the Quebec gay community, the terms are important, since they are used on specialized websites such as Gay411 or Priape to arrange encounters. Members of these websites routinely use these terms, which are defined as:

SAFE: This word refers to the degree of safety of the sex act. It may involve the use of condoms but is usually used in terms of conduct. “Safe” sex can mean contact without exchange of fluid, massages, kisses, caresses, sex without penetration or using items like dildos or gels. The range of “safe” relationships is broad and cannot be limited or oversimplified as the use of a condom. It would be equally wrong to suggest that “safe” sex precludes HIV. A person with HIV can indeed have “safe” sex.

CLEAN: In addition to the term “safe”, the word “clean” is used to refer directly to a medical condition. It often means the absence of HIV and HIV-negative status but it is also applies to all sexually transmitted diseases such as gonorrhea, Chlamydia, syphilis, herpes or hepatitis and other diseases that can be transmitted by physical contact.

To some people, “clean” can also mean that they test positive but have an undetectable viral load. Indeed, for several years it has been known that triple therapy, when followed regularly, can reduce the HIV viral load to the point of becoming undetectable in blood making it more difficult to transmit the virus, since it there are not enough present to constitute a serious risk. Since 2010, UNAIDS has favored triple therapy over condoms as the best way to prevent HIV infection, and Canada subscribes to the position of this United Nations agency.

An assertion by a person with HIV whose viral load is undetectable following triple therapy treatment and calls himself “clean” is now supported by science. Using the same logic, some HIV-positive people refer to themselves as HIV-negative when they know it is undetectable. One may disagree with this opinion but, logically, the lack of evidence meets the criterion for an HIV-negative finding.

BAREBACKING: This practice is not entirely new, having emerged around 1996 in the gay community, mainly among HIV-positive people who refuse to use condoms. The consensus among community groups and Quebec Ministry of Health of Quebec specialists is that practitioners consciously lust for the thrill of risking unprotected sex in order to achieve an adrenaline-driven orgasm. Like playing Russian roulette, barebacking is synonymous with a conscious desire to flirt with death. Some depressed people who see no hope for the future practice barebacking, claiming that they won’t live long enough for an HIV infection to affect them. Barebacking is also sometimes considered a mental illness. All people seeking to bareback know that they are dallying with HIV — and death.

Police brutality and prejudice go hand in hand!

By Roger-Luc Chayer

edito@gglobetv.com

When everything goes wrong, nothing works any more…”. That summarizes the handling of a very unique Quebec trial which has led to the imprisonment of a gay man, Steve Biron, for allegedly having unprotected sex despite knowing that he had HIV.

According to testimony by the officer in charge of the investigation during a Dec. 22 hearing at the Quebec City courthouse, it all started when Biron’s alleged victims filed complaints. Quebec City Police Detective Sergeant Louis Lachance looked quite awkward when, at the request of Crown prosecutor Rachel Gagnon, he tried to summarize the case to Judge Chantal Pelletier during a bail hearing.

Det.-Sgt. Lachance tried to explain the difference between the words “safe”, “clean” and “barebacking”, mixing up the definitions to the point that he acknowledged that he didn’t have the entire file at his fingertips with which to make the distinctions.

He also depicted Gay411 as a dating site reserved for “homosexuals” that offers nothing but anal sex, top or bottom. However it’s well-known, as a visit to the site confirmed, that Gay411 is a dating site for men (be they gay, bisexual or heterosexuals seeking alternative adventures), that, besides offering sexual services, provides many other services like friendship, chat-rooms or love. It is quite misleading to suggest that the site is only for tops or bottoms, as these practices are not common to all gays.

The officer’s testimony ended up being an embarrassing expression of prejudice against gay lifestyle, rather than the precise description of a gay dating site that one would expect during a criminal court hearing. The officer also confused the meaning of the words “safe” and “clean “, saying that safe means HIV-negative and that clean means the same thing, although this is untrue. Steve Biron’s lawyer, Herman Bédard, appeared to decide, to the surprise of all including his client—not to file his evidence and let the judge make a decision that seems not to be fully informed.

For example, during preparatory meetings with his client, members of his family and partner as well as with the author of this article, the lawyer stated that he was prepared to submit the findings of Gay Globe Media’s investigation, which demonstrated that some of the alleged victims were not as clean and innocent as they had claimed in their written statements to police.

The lawyer ought to have enabled judge Pelletier to consider medical advances such as triple therapy and undetectable viral load, which he ultimately failed to do, despite all the findings and documents in his possession. All this led to a ruling that has kept Steve Biron behind bars, awaiting further proceedings that include a preliminary hearing slated for January 31, 2011. Can justice be served when incompetence runs rampant at a criminal trial?

Manitoba Court of Appeal opts to release HIV victim undergoing triple therapy…

By Roger-Luc Chayer

edito@gglobetv.com

In the case of the Crown vs. Mabior, the Manitoba Court of Appeal, the province’s highest court (just below the Supreme Court of Canada) issued a ruling which is not binding elsewhere in Canada, one which Judge Chantal Pelletier—who is hearing the Steve Biron case—chose to ignore. In its ruling, the court said that for a person to be convicted of sexual assault or serious aggression for not having disclosing his HIV status, the risk of HIV transmission must be significant. Based on the facts and the medical evidence presented in this case, the Court of Appeal held that if a condom is used carefully or if the accused’s viral load is undetectable, then the act does not involve significant risk of HIV transmission. Therefore, there is no requirement to disclose HIV-positive status in these circumstances.

True or trumped-up victims? That is the question…

By Roger-Luc Chayer

edito@gglobetv.com

We could not set about publishing a full investigation into the Steve Biron case without looking into the activities of some victims who claim to be pure and chaste, according to their statements filed in court.

Since most of the victims said that they used the services of the Gay411 site to meet Steve Biron and since GayGlobe Media has an account there, it was very easy to locate victims under the guise of strict anonymity, long after their statements to the Quebec City Police Department led to the arrest of Steve Biron.

A common thread emerged, which can be easily summarized: Nearly all the victims told police that they weren’t seeking barebacking, that this unprotected sex was agreed to under false pretenses by Biron, that they were concerned about the possible transmission of HIV, that Biron at first assured them that he was not positive and that they had never before been involved in barebacking. It’s also worth noting that, for the moment, all the victims say that they remain HIV negative and that all tests confirm that since Biron’s arrest no one has been infected, supporting the thesis that a person with HIV who is being treated and whose HIV is undetectable cannot transmit the disease.

Gay Globe’s investigation leaves no doubt as to the fact that some of the “victims” appear to lie in their statements to police. First, a Gay Globe staff member who posed as a Gay411 member looking for unprotected sex attempted to communicate with some victims whose account was still open and working. It was not difficult to establish links with at least five of Steve Biron’s alleged victims. The web identity of the victims—in other words, their user name—was clearly stated in their complaints and their account of events to police.

Disturbingly, not only were the victims who said that they had been traumatized and were undergoing post-exposure preventive treatment still very active on the Gay411 site, three of them responded positively to our requests for “bareback”-type sex without asking a single question about our HIV status or our health and even agreed to meet us at a well-known Quebec City hotel. Essentially, people who claim to be victims of a barebacker who had lied about his HIV status were very actively trying to engage in bareback acts without a moment’s worry about HIV, completely contradicting their criminal complaints. In addition, since these victims know they are potentially HIV-infected—as they claim in their complaints—by witholding that information from our representative during their investigation into bareback sex, they committed themselves to the very acts that they complained Steve Biron had committed, showing how little importance they attach to the threat.

The identity of these individuals is known and will be unveiled to the Court, as counsel for Steve Biron has told Gay Globe that a subpoena has been served requiring us to disclose this information, which we will not object to since the freedom of an individual is at stake.

To conclude, Steve Biron, accused of knowingly conveying HIV, faces a prison sentence of up to 14 years. The issues at hand are simple: Had Biron truly intended to transmit the disease, why is he undergoing triple therapy whose only purpose is to reduce the viral load? Did Steve Biron really intend to commit a criminal act? There is a reasonable doubt in this case and, faced with that doubt, acquittal is the only possibility. That’s the way the law works in this country in which we live.

What are the risks of making false accusations?

By Roger-Luc Chayer

edito@gglobetv.com

Any person who makes a false charge against another could face serious legal consequences. For example, police might charge the accuser with mischief, a crime that could lead to a fine or a prison term. A person who perjures himself in court would face similar consequences.

Finally, those who make false complaints to the police could face civil suits and potentially a judgment obliging them to pay significant damages. Food for thought…

The best defence against scams is knowledge. There are so many scams, but in all cases, a little research and patience will prevent you becoming the next victim.WASHINGTON, D.C. – Eric Messier was permanently barred by the federal court from marketing a tax fraud scheme. According to the Departments Tax Division, Messier advised customers that, by using a corporation sole, they could avoid paying federal income tax. Messier conducted his business through the Liberty Fellowship and the Liberty Holdings Trust.Messier must give the government a list of member names, addresses, phone numbers, and taxpayer identification numbers.James L. Tolbert of Los Angeles, is banned from preparing federal income tax returns for others. He promoted a tax scheme by representing, that their members are not liable for federal income tax because they are citizens of another state or country.It is easy to fall victim to this scam because the person organizing the scam usually has a legitimate status in the financial or investing community. They are people who should know the loopholes.Most investors steer clear of emails that promise new opportunities in offshore investing or prime banks. Offshore company will promise huge returns from offshore investments that are bogus.Of course, this is illegal. It doesnt matter where your income is earned, and what currency you are paid, it is subject to income tax. The biggest concern with offshore scams is that they pop up, and disappear without notice, taking all their investors money with them. As the investor was involved with an illegal practice, they cannot ask the government for help. In fact, if they do report the scam they may find themselves faced with high fines and even jail time for tax fraud.Another scam involves prime banks. Prime banks are the top 50 banks in the world. Internet hucksters ask for investors money so they can invest in risk-free, high yield prime bank financial instruments. However, they invest in high risk, speculative investment vehicles that have absolutely nothing to do with prime banks. Avoid prime bank schemes like the plague.
In fact, some bold con artists make it sound easy to start your own off shore, prime, bank.Sometimes they are told the person will be hired for a position, other times they are told they will be a middle man. They are told about the amazing opportunities made possible by pooling. And that the original company is old, and respected by industry leaders, Sheiks, and Kings.

Any program that asks an investor to step out of the protection and regulatory bodies of their country are always suspicious. If it also demands a certain level of secrecy, then the investor knows they have uncovered a scam.