Lindros V. Stewart

[rjd]

http://www.tsn.ca/lindros-files-lawsuit-against-former-referee-1.215863

Interesting.  I don't think any professional athlete is a paragon of virtue, but this might be a bit much.  Hard to say who I believe in this one. 

 

[LuncheonMeat]

I thought this line by Stewart was a little strange:

"... I wasn't going to give that guy a break on anything borderline that I might have let slide with a player who had gained acceptability with me."

Players have to 'gain acceptability' with him? 

BTW, I've read Stewart's blog on HockeyBuzz in the past (he works for Eklund  ), and he comes across as a guy with a big ego who's a little bit angry all the time.

 

[rjd]

I thought this line by Stewart was a little strange:

"... I wasn't going to give that guy a break on anything borderline that I might have let slide with a player who had gained acceptability with me."

Players have to 'gain acceptability' with him? 

BTW, I've read Stewart's blog on HockeyBuzz in the past (he works for Eklund  ), and he comes across as a guy with a big ego who's a little bit angry all the time.

That's kind of the impression I got as well, so I might actually be leaning toward Lindros in this.  I can't see a guy tearing up posters for a charity just because of a penalty call.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

That's kind of the impression I got as well, so I might actually be leaning toward Lindros in this.  I can't see a guy tearing up posters for a charity just because of a penalty call.

The equipment manager in the story has also come out and denied that the poster thing ever happened. He admits to being Eric's friend so maybe he's just covering things up, but it really is an odd story.

 

[L K]

I thought this line by Stewart was a little strange:

"... I wasn't going to give that guy a break on anything borderline that I might have let slide with a player who had gained acceptability with me."

Players have to 'gain acceptability' with him? 

BTW, I've read Stewart's blog on HockeyBuzz in the past (he works for Eklund  ), and he comes across as a guy with a big ego who's a little bit angry all the time.

EDIT: I can't read and work at the same time. 
Summary: I loosely know Lindros though work.  He's a nice guy.  This kind of stuff can eat at him because what people think/say about him matters.  Stewart comes across as a tool a lot when he writes stuff.

Whether the issue is true or not is going to be a tough thing to prove.  It's pretty ugly if the equipment manager is denying the story, but also if he is a friend of Lindros' he might not be inclined to make Eric look bad. 

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I think it's more a statement intending to say that if it was a guy that Lindros had a pre-existing respect for he might let a little more slide.  For a guy who he already has personal issues with, he's not going to tolerate a guy slandering him.

Are you responding to the right thing here?  The "I wasn't going to give that guy a break on anything borderline that I might have let slide with a player who had gained acceptability with me" thing was Stewart commenting on why he wouldn't let Lindros get away with any borderline penalties.

 

[L K]

I think it's more a statement intending to say that if it was a guy that Lindros had a pre-existing respect for he might let a little more slide.  For a guy who he already has personal issues with, he's not going to tolerate a guy slandering him.

Are you responding to the right thing here?  The "I wasn't going to give that guy a break on anything borderline that I might have let slide with a player who had gained acceptability with me" thing was Stewart commenting on why he wouldn't let Lindros get away with any borderline penalties.

No, I was not.  I need to stop commenting on things in between work. 

 

[cw]

The first big legal debate, and maybe the most important, will be over jurisdiction. Lindros sued in Ontario. Stewart is American as is (I think) the Huff Post (somewhat recently sold to AOL or some US corp).

In Canada, the defamation suit puts the onus on the defendant to prove what they said is true. Tough thing for Stewart when the equipment manager he mentioned denies his story. But damages allowed are usually much less than the US.

The other problem Lindros' team faces, should they win their case, is trying to get the CDN judgement accepted/enforced in the US (complex reciprocal legal issue but they could easily win in Ontario and be told to take a hike by US courts when they try to enforce it on a US citizen) - unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work as well for Canadians when the shoe is on the other foot.

If the jurisdiction is argued successfully that it should be heard in a US court where the defamation appears to have originated, Lindros is arguably a public figure. For public figures, defamation law is different in the US. Under US defamation law, the onus typically is on the plaintiff to prove Stewart not only was inaccurate and damaging but went beyond fair comment with malicious intent to damage a public figure, Lindros (tough to prove).

In the US, there's also a slew of outdated law not anticipating the internet that can protect one against defamation as well. Under US freedom of speech constitutional rights, you're a lot more free to defame someone without consequence.

US media might get behind Stewart on this one to protect themselves if there's no good precedent because if Lindros wins, they could have future problems though I suspect there's probably already some precedent in case law.

 

[Nik]

I don't know how much this affects things legally cw but I'm pretty sure that the story was posted on the Huffington Post's Canadian edition and I do know that they have Canadian staff. So it seems to me that Canadian laws would apply if it's a publication meant to be read in Canada although, admittedly, I'm not an expert.

 

[cw]

I don't know how much this affects things legally cw but I'm pretty sure that the story was posted on the Huffington Post's Canadian edition and I do know that they have Canadian staff. So it seems to me that Canadian laws would apply if it's a publication meant to be read in Canada although, admittedly, I'm not an expert.

During the 2008 Obama campaign and after, I was involved in defending some bloggers who were sued in the US. It went on for more than a year. And then there was a followup lawsuit the other way that went on for a year or two ending in 2012. Neither were successful. You wouldn't believe how complex this can get.

I knew of Conrad Black's more recent cases so in response to your post, I decided to review what had happened since 2012:
http://www.siskinds.com/getattachment/b2346b51-c719-4764-a2ac-8943ebe5512f/Canadian-Defamation-Law.aspx
The framework for the assumption of jurisdiction was set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in one of the companion decisions, Van Breda v. Village Resorts 2012 SCC 17. In Van Breda, LeBel J. outlined four presumptive connecting factors? which, the presence of one or more of them, would establish a ?real and substantial connection? between the dispute and the territory and entitle a province?s court to assume jurisdiction of a tort-based lawsuit ?
1) the defendant is domiciled or resident in the province
2) the defendant carries on business in the province
3) the tort was committed in the province and
4) a contract connected with the dispute was made in the province.

From that, I would say that Lindros' chances have improved on the argument for Canadian jurisdiction but that may also be why they reduced damages on their claim from $3 mil to $250k - probably limiting it to Canada where they have a better chance of success.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

That's kind of the impression I got as well, so I might actually be leaning toward Lindros in this.  I can't see a guy tearing up posters for a charity just because of a penalty call.

The equipment manager in the story has also come out and denied that the poster thing ever happened. He admits to being Eric's friend so maybe he's just covering things up, but it really is an odd story.

We'll probably never know.  I still remember the bar/drink throwing incident.  I also remember how much his parents were involved in his career, and demanding a trade, etc.  I think he was a pretty cocky and somewhat self-entitled kid in those days.  That being said, I think he's done a whole lot of growing up in the years since.

 

[Rebel_1812]

I thought this line by Stewart was a little strange:

"... I wasn't going to give that guy a break on anything borderline that I might have let slide with a player who had gained acceptability with me."

Players have to 'gain acceptability' with him? 

BTW, I've read Stewart's blog on HockeyBuzz in the past (he works for Eklund  ), and he comes across as a guy with a big ego who's a little bit angry all the time.

EDIT: I can't read and work at the same time. 
Summary: I loosely know Lindros though work.  He's a nice guy.  This kind of stuff can eat at him because what people think/say about him matters.  Stewart comes across as a tool a lot when he writes stuff.

Whether the issue is true or not is going to be a tough thing to prove.  It's pretty ugly if the equipment manager is denying the story, but also if he is a friend of Lindros' he might not be inclined to make Eric look bad.

I don't think it will be that hard to prove.  He said the posters were for a charity.  Contact the charity and see if they have record of the posters which they should as assets for the organization.  Then see what happened to them.  If they disappeared and are recorded as an accounting loss then it seems stewart is telling the truth.  If there is no record, or if the posters were successfully auctioned and listed in the bookkeeping; then steward made it up.