Law Times

Page 10 July 22, 2013 Law Times • FOCUS Investigations firm facing defamation suit over newsletter BY CHARLOTTE SANTRY Law Times C anada's largest investigations firm is facing a defamation lawsuit in a case involving two telecommunications giants. CKR Global Investigations finds itself enmeshed in a legal battle involving Shaw Direct and Bell ExpressVu Ltd. Partnership on one side and members of a family who own or manage three residential properties in Toronto on the other. Bell had hired King-Reed & Associates LP, which became CKR in a 2011 merger, to investigate the apartments. Bell suspected its programming was being decoded and retransmitted to individual units without its knowledge or authorization. The investigation firm rented units in the apartments to see whether Bell's suspicions were accurate and found that they were. Bell told Shaw some of its program- A legal battle related to several Toronto properties has drawn ming was also apparently being transmit- CKR Global Investigations into a defamation action. Photo: Charlotte Santry ted to apartments in this way. Shaw collected evidence of this activity through an Pieckenhagen family. The case named Curtin-house investigation. Michael Pieckenhagen, Curt Pieckenhagen, In January 2011, Bell and Shaw launched Kurt Pieckenhagen, Julita Pieckenhagen, Jua lawsuit against several members of the lita-Luise Pieckenhagen, Vera Pieckenhagen, Nicole Pieckenhagen, and several others as defendants. The telecommunications companies claimed damages for breach of the Radiocommunication Act, fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy, conversion, unlawful interference with economic relations, and unjust enrichment. None of the allegations have been proven in court. The Toronto Star ran a story about the case that formed the basis of an article published in a King-Reed corporate newsletter and posted online for 16 days. Some members of the Pieckenhagen family named in the Bell and Shaw lawsuits launched a defamation claim against KingReed, Bell, and Shaw based on the newsletter article in July 2012. They claimed the telecommunications firms had supplied KingReed with the information for the article. On June 20, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued a summary judgment ruling regarding Bell and Shaw. According to Justice Edward Morgan, "there is nothing whatsoever to suggest" that the agreement between King-Reed and Bell was "anything but the standard retainer of an outside consulting service for a discrete task." King-Reed's relationship with Shaw HANDLE EVIDENCE EFFECTIVELY FROM THE CRIME SCENE TO THE COURTROOM NEW PUBLICATION CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION: THEORY, PRACTICE, TECHNIQUE AND LAW BRIAN WARD AND MARK HEEREMA Get expert insight on all aspects of crime scene investigations – from securing, collecting, identifying, and analyzing evidence to complying with legal requirements such as chain of evidence, reliability, disclosure obligations and admissibility. ORDER # 985194-65203 $125 Softcover approx. 180 pages January 2013 978-0-7798-5194-2 Shipping and handling are extra. Price subject to change without notice and subject to applicable taxes. You'll get thorough coverage of the various types of physical, oral and demonstrative evidence – from fingerprints and footprints to expert witness testimony and re-enactments. And you'll get the most current information on digital evidence, DNA evidence, crime labs, death investigations, and forensic sciences. The authors offer expert guidance on the legal responsibilities of conducting an investigation, including the current law governing search and seizure in light of the Charter. You'll get a working knowledge of the law of evidence, including answers to the critical questions: What is evidence? When is evidence admissible? How do we preserve and present crime scene evidence in court? Crime Scene Investigation: Theory, Practice, Technique and Law offers the expert insight and practical advice that will guide you through any crime scene investigation. EXPERIENCE THE BENEFITS • • • Learn how evidence is identified, collected, and processed – and how it is presented in court Review best practices for effectively handling a crime scene Understand the legal obligations to properly preserve evidence and maintain chain of custody AVAILABLE RISK-FREE FOR 30 DAYS Order online: www.carswell.com Call Toll-Free: 1-800-387-5164 In Toronto: 416-609-3800 AUTHORITATIVE. INNOVATIVE. TRUSTED. www.lawtimesnews.com was "non-existent," he said. It was "more than curious," Morgan noted, that "only the parties who have played central roles in the Graydon Hall actions have been named as defendants in the within actions." It was also "certainly interesting," the judge wrote, that the Pieckenhagens had launched an action over King-Reed's newsletter but wasn't suing the Toronto Star with its "massive circulation." Morgan agreed with the defendants that the defamation action was "nothing more than a collateral effort to obtain further discovery related to the larger dispute between the parties that forms the basis of an altogether different action." The defamation claim, properly understood, is a "small battle within a larger war being waged between the parties," he wrote. CKR will face the defamation claim in a separate hearing. The court has yet to set a date for it. A spokesman declined to comment as the case was still before the court. CKR was formed from KingReed and Canpro Global Services Inc. to create a company with annual revenues of more than $40 million. The company now employs more than 500 professionals in 23 offices across Canada and also has international outposts. Peter Downard, a defamation lawyer at Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, says the defamation case highlights the potential risks of publishing corporate information online. "Although some publications to strictly controlled audiences may be privileged, not all will be and the content may exceed the bounds of any privilege that might apply," he says. "Where the audience is not tightly controlled, the publisher may effectively be in the same position as any newspaper or broadcaster for legal purposes and perhaps worse given the potential breadth of Internet publications." Regarding the legal motion brought by Shaw relating to the alleged fraud, the Pieckenhagen defendants brought an unsuccessful motion to stay the proceedings and unsuccessfully appealed it all the way to a motion for leave to the Supreme Court. They also tried to appeal the actions brought by Bell. "A large amount of costs have been awarded against [the Pieckenhagens] as a result of all those proceedings," wrote Morgan. The summary judgment in the defamation case dismissed the actions against Bell and Shaw and awarded costs. Nevertheless, the court reduced the costs from the outlines provided by the companies' counsel at Border Ladner Gervais LLP. It cut them to $15,000 in total from $173,000 on a full indemnity basis. Neither the Pieckenhagen plaintiffs in the defamation action nor their counsel responded to messages left by Law Times. LT

• Cover