Clear Channel Outdoor Threatens to Sue the Toronto Public Space Committee for Economic Loss
So it has come to this. Clear Channel Outdoor has threatened to sue both myself, and the [now, unaffiliated] Toronto Public Space Committee, not for defamation, but for economic loss resulting from by-law enforcement action initiated by the TPSC against Clear Channel’s illegal billboards.
It all happened because of this complaint that the TPSC’s Alison Gorbould filed with Municipal Licensing and Standards against Clear Channel’s illegal video screen at 143 Lake Shore Boulevard East.
Three days after that complaint was filed and two weeks after the Toronto Port Authority sued Community Air, I received this letter via e-mail from Clear Channel’s solicitor, who perhaps thought I filed the complaint.
Daniel Ford, Bennett Jones:
Rami Tabello
C/o Toronto Public Space Committee
PO Box 372
253 College Street
Toronto, Ontario
M5T 1R5Dear Sirs:
We are the solicitors for Clear Channel…
Much of the outdoor signage which Clear Channel has is located on private land for which there are private commercial arrangements with non-public entities…. To the extent you, your organization or any member of your organization should seek to interfere in such private commercial arrangements, should trespass upon such private land or undertake any measures against Clear Channel specifically which would result in economic loss to Clear Channel, Clear Channel will pursue all legal remedies available at its disposal to restrict or prohibit such action and to recover any loss occasioned thereby, including, without limitation, any legal costs incurred by Clear Channel in connection with same.
I responded to Mr. Ford
“Mr Ford, I am asking for clarification of one sentence in your e-mail: “undertake any measures against Clear Channel specifically which would result in economic loss to Clear Channel” Does this include the filing of complaints against Clear Channel with Municipal Licensing which specifically target Clear Channel Billboards and would result in economic loss to Clear Channel if Clear Channel has illegal signs?â€Â
Dan Ford responds:
If you have some interest in real property which adjoins the signage in question then we might understand that, to the extent it impacted upon your current use of that property, you would have some interest in ascertaining Clear Channel’s legal status in respect of the signage and might then have legitimate standing to pursue inquiries in that regard. Absent that, we are of the view that you do not have any specific standing which would justify the inquiries which you have made and which you are proposing to make in respect of Clear Channel’s signage. Furthermore, any such inquiries or any action taken in respect of same which may serve to alter Clear Channel’s present situation may constitute an unlawful interference…
This is the best part:
The City of Toronto and its staff are charged with the responsibility of assessing legal compliance of outdoor advertisers within the City and it is to them that such matters should be left. We suggest that confidence should be reposed in their abilities to make such assessments based upon the facts which they have at hand.
I write back:
“Are you are suggesting that I should not file any sign complaints with Toronto’s Municipal Licensing and Standards for signs that Clear Channel operates, otherwise you will seek redress for economic loss if said sign complaints result in economic loss to Clear Channel even if these sign complaints are part of hundreds of sign complaints I filed with the City, most of which are for signs not operated by Clear Channel?â€Â
Now read Dan Ford’s clear and cogent response [emphasis added]:
Sufficed to say, that when companies invest millions of dollars in a business under a “colour of right” be that in the form of legally compliant usage, legal non-conforming use or otherwise, and another party chooses to interfere in those rights without any apparent standing to do so, to the extent such interference results in economic loss to that company, the company will look to all legal means to recover that loss, including, without limitation, pursuing a claim against the party having caused that loss.
Now just mull over the meaning of “or otherwise†in the context of that sentence and in the context of what I asked Mr. Ford. Sufficed to say, if that’s not a solicitor threatening me with a lawsuit for filing a by-law violation complaint against his client’s illegal activity, I don’t know what is.
Consider that Clear Channel is a company that seeks to own and operate our ‘Street Furniture’ in contract Toronto can’t get out of for twenty years. Good luck winning that contract now, Clear Channel. Imagine the hell Mayor Miller would catch if Clear Channel wins that RFP.
Imagine giving a twenty year hegemony on our sidewalks to Clear Channel, a multi-billion dollar corporation that is so ensconced in lawlessness that it would go so far as to threaten to sue a penniless group of volunteers that exposed its illegal actions.
Could the City of Toronto really sign a 20-year non-cancelable contract with a company that would engage in such heavy-handed harassment? I have a better idea for Mayor Miller: Why don’t you just get the Toronto Port Authority to manage our “street furniture”?
As for Clear Channel’s solicitor, Mr. Daniel Ford, I will be filing a formal complaint with the Law Society of Upper Canada against Mr. Ford. Lawyers just can’t threaten to sue people for trying to get the law enforced in the Province of Ontario.
At least, I hope they can’t.
Coming up: We have conducted extensive research on Clear Channel’s Toronto portfolio and Clear Channel isn’t going to like what we discovered… a very large sign is on very thin ice… discover why we believe that the largest, most visible, and most lucrative billboard on the expressway, a $1Million/Year sign, is totally illegal…why we believe its permits were improperly issued in the 1990s… why we believe false information was filed with the Buildings Department… but first you will read the totally entertaining story of how Clear Channel is having trouble following Dan Ford’s advice… so stay tuned for more shenanigans from Toronto’s off-the-rails, out-of-control, Outdoor Advertising Industry.
UPDATE: Clear Channel was called to the carpet by two city councillors for threatening to sue.
Read the other posts in our “Street Furniture” file:
Astral Media: A Culture of Non-Compliance With the Law (Part One)
Astral Media: A Culture of Non-Compliance With the Law (Part Two)
March 16th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Good For You! What has our society come to if we cannot report lawbreakers – or ask our government to investigate suspected lawbreakers – without threats from corporate agents? Shame on Mr. Ford and his client for threatening you for trying to be a concerned citizen, especially if they are in violation of the law. Perhaps if they were paying an appropriate fee to the city for this sign at least they would have an argument that you should butt out, but doesn’t sound like that is the case here.
I too am amazed by the visual pollution that we see all in the name of promoting crap so some company can “huck a buck.”
My “favorite” are the movie poster billboards on the sides of apartment buildings near DonMills and Sheppard. Talk about ugly.
The Don Mills and Sheppard signs are being operated by Strategic Media. The funny thing is we received three calls from three different advertising industry players and each of those men told us to add the Don Mills and Sheppard signs to our map. They also told us the signs fell down a few times. These appear to be the most hated signs in the advertising industry. Problem is, we need the municipal address of the sign to add them to our complaints to the City. If anyone has the municipal address of that apartment building, please let us know. -Rami
March 16th, 2007 at 11:01 am
I was told once that only paralegals used “govern yourself accordingly” in correspondence as such outdated pomposity was only employed by people who needed to feel special.
March 16th, 2007 at 11:19 am
The way the content of their letters boils down, it seems to me that Clear Channel’s solicitors could’ve saved their clients a little money by scrawling “You’re a big meanie” on a postcard and slipping it under your door.
Clear Channel’s solicitor shot his client in the face. I don’t know what he was thinking. I believe that an upstanding member of the bar would say to his clients: “Hey maybe threatening to sue somebody for complaining about your illegal actions is not the right way to approach this.” Now Mr. Ford and Clear Channel are the ones in hot water. -Rami
March 16th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Clear Channel’s letter is based on some legal concept known only to them. Is it any surprise that those who have been making money in an illegal fashion would resort to threats? But I have to admit that a thief complaining that somebody has stolen their loot is a new twist.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Well done!
Clear Channel are complete bastards.
They had decimated the radio airwaves industry to such a degree that it will probably never recover.
The less of a foothold they get here, the better!
Funny to hear that the ad companies are turning eachother in to you…beautiful irony!
Coverage in the Star today was good as well. I wish they had included the Black Bull before and after photos to emphasize the difference a successful conclusion can make to our streetscape.
Have you approached CBC’s The Current yet in regards to getting more media coverage?
If not, you should!
March 16th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
As a member of the TPSCs Billboard Batallion campaign, I cannot believe what I am reading.
They are threatening to defend illegal actions with legal action.
They are stating the city should not get any help in determining which signs are legal, or otherwise, and anyone that tries to expose illegal activity is responsible for a corporations loss.
It is sick.
I am hereby stepping up personal recruitment of volunteers for referral to the TPSC campaign.
March 16th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
God forbid clearchannelling of the people’s public benches, tables, and shelters, lest we end up with decades of fodder for
http://www.illegalFURNITURE.see.eh
:-/
March 16th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Maybe Dan Ford should sue the Toronto Police for catching people who steal/rob others/or deal drugs. For getting caught and going to jail “results in economic loss” to the criminal.
I will NOT be purchasing ANY products advertised on that companys ads.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
I suspect that the companies who are buying the advertising have no idea that the advertising companies are violating municipal bylaws. Give them the benefit of the doubt.
March 16th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
I don’t know about signs at Don Mills & Sheppard, but I believe the big one visible from the southbound 404/DVP is on the north face of the apartment building at 135 Fenelon Dr. The building is the one on the right side of this photo, looking southbound from the Sheppard overpass over the 404.
http://www.onthighways.com/hwy_404-406_images/404_cl_18_south.jpg
A quick check on the City’s online mapping (http://map.toronto.ca) confirms the address. (That is a useful tool now that it has property lines, building outlines, and street addresses on it in addition to the lowish-res air photos.)
That’s it, 135 Fenelon Dr. has been added to our list of illegal signs and will be mapped shortly. Thanks for the info. – Rami
March 17th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
“I suspect that the companies who are buying the advertising have no idea that the advertising companies are violating municipal bylaws. Give them the benefit of the doubt.”
Andrew, you have a good point, except perhaps they should pursue due diligence in uncovering the ethical practices of the advertisers they use. Nevertheless, since this orbits around ‘economic loss’ and no higher principle, should any Clear Channel client believe they are going to lose significant money due to consumer boycott… the signs will be down faster than Clear Channel’s share value.
March 17th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Whether Clear Channel is bland, banal, insipid or whatever is irrelevant. You may want to get some legal advice. If Clear Channel has to respond to each and every allegation in some manner I could see their argument that filing spurious claims could be seen as “interference [that] results in economic loss to that company” if they have to expend resources. If, on the other hand, all the burden is borne by the city who determines that signage is not up to code or whatever, it’s the city’s problem for approving it in the first place. If it’s outright illegal and they don’t have permission to do it, then too bad for them. Maybe their lawyer should invest in some risk management planning to keep his client in line. It’s like saying you can’t complain to the Advertising Standards Canada or something.
March 17th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Your proper legal standing is your citizenship, for goodness sake.
March 18th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
[...] Clear Channel Outdoor Threatens to Sue the Toronto Public Space Committee for Economic Loss ::: ille… – IlegalSpaces.ca has been going after bylaw-breaking billboards in Toronto. Guess how Clear Channel is responding: a) complying with the bylaw, or b) threatening their critics with SLAPP suits? [...]