I was just doing a little research into one of the claims of the massively-indebted and thoroughly-bankrupt Patrick Ross, and it would appear that one of Patrick's major claims as to his ability to continue to sue me even after he loses this upcoming Rule 4.33 Application hearing is based on utter fantasy and Patrick's profound lack of ability to read. I will explain in detail because it's quite something.
First, let us establish the limitation periods for suing for defamation in Alberta (the very rules that Patrick is counting on for all of this), and we'll let Google AI give us a perfect summary:
Let's understand clearly what the above is saying as it will be critically important below. What the above is saying is that, in Alberta, you have two years to file a defamation lawsuit from the date you either discovered or ought to have discovered the alleged defamation. In this case, we can focus on the date when Patrick discovered the alleged defamation since it's documented in his filing of August, 2022. On first reading, this suggests that, given that what Patrick described in that lawsuit is almost four years old, he absolutely cannot simply refile that same lawsuit with the same complaints as all of them would be way outside the 2-year limitations period. That seems clear enough. But what is that 10-year ultimate limit? And this is what Patrick gets hysterically wrong.
As you can see, the 10-year limit generously gives you up to 10 years to discover the alleged defamation, but it in no way overrides the 2-year limit to file. For example, then, if you discovered some alleged defamation five years after which it was published, you would still have only two years to sue over it. On the other hand, if you discovered that alleged defamation after nine years, you would have only one year in order to beat the ultimate limit. If you discover it after 10 years, you are shit out of luck and there's nothing you can do. The crucial point here is that none of that changes the 2-year limit to file your lawsuit, meaning that, no matter what happens at the August 20 hearing, Patrick cannot refile that same lawsuit from 2022 since all of that alleged defamation would be over four years old.
But, hang on ... not so fast. Patrick thinks he's found a loophole, and he explains his bizarre interpretation of the time limits thusly in the aforementioned letter of July 18:
If I read this correctly, Patrick seems to think that the 2-year limit does not apply to him since he insists on describing my alleged defamation as "ongoing" and "continuous", then drags in the 10-year ultimate time limit; a time limit we have already established is not relevant to this situation. So Patrick gets that part completely wrong. But it gets worse for Patrick.
Patrick seems to believe that my alleged defamation is "ongoing" and "continuous"; that is, he appears to think that, in some way, the 2-year time limit does not apply to him because, in some mysterious way, I am continuing to defame him and that that "ongoing" defamation continues to reset the 2-year clock (possibly on a daily basis).
Well, no, that's not how it works and, once again, I present Google AI's take on Patrick's novel interpretation of what constitutes "ongoing" defamation:
I will not bore you with my analysis of the above, but I will point out the only things that matter:
- Leaving an allegedly defamatory article online after it is published does not reset the 2-year clock, so all of that alleged defamation in Patrick's 2022 lawsuit that Patrick keeps whinging on about is far past the 2-year deadline.
- For the clock to be reset, a fresh, separate claim might arise if the earlier material was published "anew in a significant way or on a different medium"; in other words, if all I did was repeat the same material in the same way on the same social media outlet, that also does not reset the clock.
Now, IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but the above does seem to suggest that, after the hearing on August 20, if all Patrick has is to try to refile with the same material or more recent publications of the same material, he's out of luck. If any lawyers want to weigh in on this, feel free.
IN SUMMARY: I'm genuinely interested in feedback from people with an actual legal background since, as I read it, Patrick cannot simply refile the same 4-year-old lawsuit as it is way out of time, and the only possibilities he has for suing me again for defamation is to identify what is clearly new defamation (not simply republished defamation) within the last two years.
Does that sound about right?
P.S. It's worth emphasizing just how massively Patrick either misunderstands or misrepresents the 10-year ultimate time limit. Compare Google AI's summary with Patrick's wildly inaccurate interpretation to truly appreciate how far Patrick is off the mark and how all of that in no way rescues him from the standard 2-year limit.
P.P.S. I predict that Patrick will not be able to resist criticizing this blog post and blar-har-har'ing about how wrong I am ... yadda yadda yadda. Let's watch.
3 comments:
By far the majority of your blog posts have been mocking him for the ever increasing debt he owes you. Given the factual basis for that and his utter disregard for taking steps to address that debt, it would seem to me that a judge would look upon those posts as no less than regular reminders to the debtor of their obligations. Embarrassing, perhaps, but hardly defamatory.
Patrick’s definition of defamation presupposes that he never did anything wrong in the first place. A pretty wild claim.
Anon @ 9:51 AM: An additional problem for Patrick is the very fact that I'm applying to dismiss his lawsuit for long delay; I can argue that he clearly did not think his own action was serious enough to move it along in a timely manner.
It is certainly a known strategy among the more litigious to sue just to hang their adversaries up.with proceedings, even if they just let the case moulder on a shelf for the most part.
Post a Comment