How often have we heard the saying, "Well that's the pot calling the kettle black!"?  Apparently we have been saying it since the 17th century to those of us who accuse others of things of which we are actually guilty.  In other words, if someone is lying about something, they accuse another of being a liar.  Originating in Spain it spawns from a translation of the novel "Don Quixote".   It's a perfect example of psychological projection.

Projection is when a person unconsciously takes unwanted traits or emotions that they don't like about themselves and attributes them to someone else.  Projection is something we all may do at one point or another. Sometimes it's the result of a stressor that triggers it.  If however it is a pattern of behaviour it may be a mental health issue that runs much deeper than simply a stressful day at the office.

* ​CITATION: Duncan v. Buckles, 2021 ONSC 1158
COURT FILE NO.: CV-18-594616
DATE: 20210216

This opinion is not written to discourage anyone from applying sound judgement to civic decisions and critiquing events occurring in their communities.  Discourse surrounding any governmental decision is an important part of our society and part of free speech guaranteed under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Grounded in fact, criticism can set into motion changes that benefit us all and keep our politicians and decision makers on track to do the will of the people.

Have you ever encountered someone who simply cannot take direction from a teacher, a parent, a team member or even a Judge? If this same person hostile towards authority figures, is angry and vindictive towards others and cannot control thier emotions - they may be suffering from Oppositional Defiance Disorder. (ODD)

Oppositional Defiance Disorder usually presents in children and is a behavioural disorder.

According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, "Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) is thought to be caused by a combination of biological, psychological, and social factors. " In many cases with treatment this disorder is resolved as the child gets older and usually within 3 years. Undiagnosed and untreated it may blossom.

Is ODD something one can carry into adulthood? Yes.

Over our lifetimes many of us have encountered individuals who in our view 'throw temper tantrums like a five year old'. The phrases "Grow up!" or "act your age, not your shoe size" is a pretty good indicator that almost everyone has seen someone act as defiant as a young child, foot stomped, lip out, arms crossed - who rebels against any authority.

"Adults with oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) feel mad at the world, misunderstood, hemmed in, and pushed around. Their constant opposition to authority figures can make it difficult to keep jobs or maintain relationships and marriages. In other words, ODD interferes with patients’ personal and professional lives and it does so without rest." - Read more here: www.additudemag.com/screener-oppositional-defiant-disorder-symptoms-test-adults/

Now it could be that this person was just angry at the world and had to find someone to blame for the death of their pet.  But if this behaviour was a pattern of blaming others, combined with not accepting the consequences of their own actions, and a vindictiveness aimed towards others - it might be indicators that they are suffering from ODD, or some other anti-social personality disorder.

Mental disorders in our society have always existed.  But in today's world, the ability of someone suffering from a mental disorder has the ability to find an audience - through the internet.  I often wonder if we as a society are able to distinguish inappropriate behaviour and find a way to curb it - so that the people exhibiting symptons can be stopped before they hurt others.

If it truly is ODD that a person is displaying - they need help from a professional.  If it isn't ODD - and simply bad behaviour, perhaps we need to call them out on it so that the problem does not get worse. 

Many years ago, I worked with a counsellor who was holding a seminar on marriage reparation.  Over coffee she explained how she could predict if a marriage was repairable. One of the signs she described that indicated to her that the marriage was in serious trouble, was when one of the couple rolled their eyes when the other was expressing a feeling or recounting an event.  She identified this as contempt.

What is contempt?  Defined by many dictionaries, it incudes defiance, showing disdain and disrespect and a disregard of the rules. It also illustrated by a lack of respect for a person or disregard for something that should be taken into account.

In my time in policing, I had the opportunity to attend court well over a hundred times.  I became aware of a criminal charge called "comtempt of court".  Contempt in a criminal court setting is characterized as disobeying the Judge or showing no respect for the Judge's decisions.  A person can also be found in contempt if they show no respect for the rules or decorum of the court.  We have all seen movies where an accused becomes verbally abusive or assaults a guard and a Judge has them removed from the Courtroom and cites them for contempt -  right from the bench.

It was rare that a Judge cited or convicted someone with "contempt of court" as most Judges were aware that people often did not know all the rules or the consequences of showing contempt by disobeying a Judge.  And the accused usually changed their behaviour once they were made aware of the consequences of doing so.

Civil Court however is a little different than criminal court.  Over the last 6 years, I have watched many court appearances in Civil Court - based on torts and not criminal law.  I have also observed many instances of someone showing contempt for the rules of the court, the rule of law, or the order of a Judge.

When someone flagrantly defies an order of a Judge, a motion can be brought before the court to show the Judge how the person defied the order.  When this happens, the Judge may find the person 'in contempt of court'.  Judges however have no interest in jailing someone for contempt in a civil matter and usually the contempt sentencing includes a fine payable to the court.

An example might be - someone is ordered not to repeat certain phrases that defames another person.  If that someone continues to speak or write the words they are ordered not to speak they may be found in contempt.  A Judge will usually rebuke the person and give them time (2 weeks - 30 days) to make reparations - letting them 'purge' their contempt.  When they return to court for sentencing,  the accused then has the opportunity to show how they have purged the contempt.  A Judge is usually more lenient if someone shows true remorse for their actions that resulted the contempt finding.  It is rare that a person is found in contempt more than a couple of times - especially if they end up paying hefty fines.

We watch too much American TV.

Just ask any Canuck that you know, what drinking and driving is called and they will say "It's a DUI" No it is not. We are Canadian. It is called "Impaired driving" or "operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood" - or 'over 80' in slang format.

The other day someone I know got a speeding ticket - and they wanted to fight it because they didn't want a 'felony' on their record. I almost choked on my "Tim Horton's Double Double".

In Canada there is no such thing as felonies nor are there misdemeanors. Criminal offences are categorized as 'Indictable', 'Summary Conviction' or 'Hybrid' offences. Each determining the seriousness of the offence and the legal process it follows.

Yes. We watch too much American T.V. Over the last several years there has been an incredible amount of coverage on American television of poor police procedures that resulted in not only injuries and deaths, but sparked protests, riots and other civil unrest. Canada has also had news coverage of issues surrounding police procedures - but the issues are much different.

In Canada, police officers are trained much differently than the USA - and I don't know of one contemporary police officer in Canada that was hired and began working as an officer without a lot of training. Canada is unlike in the USA in this respect - where state by state and jurisdiction by jurisdiction, the requirements for hiring and training of police officers is very different. Additionally, none of our 'sheriffs' or chiefs are elected. They must have experience - not popularity. It's a much different system.

​Which brings me to 'arrest', the Canadian way.

To be arrested in Canada by a police officer - the officer must have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the person they are arresting committed an offence. For example if the police receive a complaint of assault - they do not just hop in the car - activate the siren, race to the accused's home, bust down the door and drag the 'perp' out kicking and screaming all while playing "bad boys, bad boys" in the background.

When you consider the definiton of 'force' and you apply it to say, "being given a ticket that the officer slides between the arm and the torso" - this cannot be called assault as no force was applied.  Especially if the ticket then falls to the ground. Clearly at this point it is safe to assume no force was applied - as the ticket did not remain in the place the officer inserted it.

Other things an officer may consider is the consistency of the complaint that the complainant gave the officer.  If at first the complainant says "the officer shoved it into my man-bag" and then changed the story to "the officer shoved it into my armpit" - the police agency receiving the report may not find the complaint credible.

Either way - if there was no intentional force applied - there was no assault.

How then, can spitting on someone be considered assault?  There was 'force applied intentionally'.  However, if the victim does not complain to the police about the assault - there would be no arrest.  There always has to be a victim in a simple assault.

Since the original article came out reporting Justice Pollak's January 3rd 2023 decision which received some press coverage, I have had a number of people call me and tell me their stories of defamation and harassment.  My best advice to them begins by advising them to let the perpetrator know that what they are doing is unwanted attention - and begin to document any further contact or harassment.

As many people know - before I moved forward with launching the lawsuit that I eventually won, I felt harassed.  Many would agree that I was being harassed - and the police, after taking my statement and reviewing the evidence also agreed.  As a result, they laid a criminal harassment charge on the individual.

Many people, both men and women, have in their lifetime - felt harassed.  In general, if they are able - they resolve the issue without involving the police.  In some cases, the harassment is not considered criminal.  There is a distinction between criminal harassment and just feeling harassed.

Violating section 264 (1)and(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is called Criminal Harassment.  

It reads: (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.

Prohibited Conduct

​(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of

• (a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;
• (b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;
• (c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or
• (d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.

As it is written - it may in fact seem to the average person - that this law is very clear on what  behaviour is unacceptable under Canadian law.  Unfortunately - it's not that simple and is subject to interpretation by a judge in court.

Section (a) is pretty straightforward and can be proven by keeping a log of a person who is following you and causes you to fear for your safety - and reporting it to the police.  Any videos or witnesses are evidence that can support your allegation.

​Section (b) mentions repeated communication, directly or indirectly AND that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.  An example is someone who mails, calls or emails a person directly or indirectly and harasses them to the point that they feel afraid that the perpetrator will cause them harm or escalate the communications to incite violence, threatens violence or become violent.  

One of the questions I received when I was a police officer - is what does 'indirectly' mean.  Usually this means sending a message to someone through or via another person.  When the law was written however, it did not consider the possibility that social media post or posting something on a blog on the internet.  The Criminal Code does address this somewhat.​

In Canada - this is called free speech - and we are all guaranteed that right - to speak freely and to express opinions.

So when does free speech cross the line into something prohibited by law?  When it is untrue, is not an opinion and is presented as fact with the intention to injure the reputation of a person.  This is when the pen is most defintely mightier than the sword.  And the cyberbully knows it.

In Canada, free speech is guaranteed under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - but it is limited under Canadian Criminal Code section 298(1).  The Criminal Code says that if the written word or 'free speech'  "is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published" - it is not legal.  It is no longer free speech.

Verbal abuse is a type of emotional abuse.  It includes the written word and does not have to be spoken to a person - especially if it is directed at someone through a publication.

And publication means that it is distributed to more than one person.  So anything written on a social media, in an email where one or more people are copied, or in any other forum such as a blogpost where people are invited to read the words printed there, is publication.

Wikipedia defines verbal abuse as "the act of harassing, labeling, insulting, scolding, rebuking, or excessive yelling towards an individual. 


​These kinds of attacks may result in mental and/or emotional distress for the victim.

Verbal (or written) abuse can be used to harass people by humiliating, insulting, criticizing, or demeaning them using words and can be used as a way to intimidate or bully people in a variety of settings.  It can also include the use of derogatory terms, the delivery of statements intended to frighten, humiliate, denigrate, or belittle them. 

​The effect of this kind of written word can be incredibly harmful for the victim of of verbal abuse - often referred to as defamation, but also categorized under cyberbullying.

According to Sherri Gordon - a bullying prevention expert, "people engage in verbal abuse for a variety of reasons.  Family history, past experiences, personality, mental illness are a few factors that can play a role."

So how does one heal from verbal abuse?  Ending the verbal abuse is the first step toward healing. 

​In the age of the internet however, where the abuse is posted online - it cannot ever be ended.  The internet has a way of repeating an abusers words infinitum.  Many people do not realize this - but the internet never forgets.

So in this case - the pen is definitely mightier than the sword -  and the victim dies the death of a thousand paper cuts.

Read Sherri Gordon's article here

"You won your case - so move on."

Yes.  I won the defamation case.  But the fact remains - I am forever changed, wounded and sad for myself and anyone else who has experienced this kind of abusive verbal and emotional violence.

Anyone who knows me - knows that I am a strong and determined woman. For almost six years, I was defamed over and over and over online.  All because one person did not like how I did my job, nor did he like that I did not back down and refused to answer a personal question that I felt he had no right to know. And so he began trolling me - looking into my past and rewriting it to suit his narrative.  He even found one of my daughters and mocked her for winning a criminal court case - where she put a rapist in jail. 

Defamation is really a whitewashed word for what happened to me.  There is no emotion attached to the word.  Neither does the word defamation encompass the harassment, the verbal violence, and the intrusion into my personal life that for me - drove me into silence and hiding.  

When someone starts a smear campaign against you - online - it can be almost impossible to fight back.  There is no way to know how many people have been sent messages that portray you as a liar, a cheater, a psychotic depressive, a child bride, someone who cuckolded their spouse, someone who drinks and drives and someone who is not qualified to work at the job where they are employed.

 Did you know that the catch phrase "Just the facts Ma'am" attributed to Joe Friday on the show Dragnet, was never really said by the origial Joe Friday? Is that the truth?  Or is it a fact?  Well the truth is - it is a fact!

I've often thought that 'swearing to tell the truth and nothing but the truth'  in court was a little problematic. One person's truth may not be another person's truth.  Hence conflicting testimony.   What we are looking for in reality is facts.  Facts that illustrate what has happened. (or is happening)  Facts are always supported by 'hard evidence'. 

Unfortunately sometimes despite searching for hard evidence we are unable to find it. 

What we rely on when we cannot find hard evidence to support fact is the story or the 'truth' that someone reveals.  It may be something that they saw or heard or understood to have happened. It is told through the lens of how they experienced something.  Truth is subjective.  We all have our truths.  The story as we believe it.  It is reflective of what we experienced  - but is influenced by our values, our prior knowledge and our understanding.

When it comes to eye-witness testimony - the problem remains that the human memory is not a video camera. Details that may be relevant and may have been observed by the human eye may not be something that we can consciously recall. We may still be able to verify bits and pieces of an event from eyewitness testimony when it is supported by hard evidence.  That does not mean that eye witeness testimony is not valuable - it just means that it may be altered by our feelings, prior experiences and even values.

What does remain however is fact.  When someone claims that something is true - it may be true as far as they believe - but if there is no way to verify the truth with any supporting evidence - it cannot be called fact.

In court however a Judge can rule a testimony (or the truth as it is told by someone) to be credible and it can be given the same weight as fact. In any dispute however - until this happens - truth told without supporting evidence should never be considered as fact. ​

So how is it that someone can claim that something is the 'truth' despite others having evidence to the contrary?  If you call them a liar - they can become insulted and insist that what they are telling you is true.  And it is true - for them.  It is the story as they understand it. And some may cling to their 'truth' despite evidence to the contrarty simply because of pride - or the fear of being 'wrong'.​

Our best action to deal with people who continue to say things we understand are untrue is to to look for and present hard evidence to reveal the facts.  Because in the end, facts will over-ride unverified truth.  So when someone insists something is true - perhaps ask them for the evidence to back up their story.

As for Joe Friday - if you do your research - and if necessary get all the transcripts for the original radio and TV series - you will find that the evidence shows that he never did say. "Just the facts Ma'am" in those earlier shows. That catch phrase only only occured when  Dan Aykroyd  starred as Joe Friday  in the remake of Dragnet with Tom Hanks as his partner  - and it was released in 1987. 

• ​

In closing, this video says it best - ​https://youtu.be/qM4bEEJ5h2o