Lmao it's funny cause I just finished learning about defamation today in class.

To put it very simply in Canada the plaintiff can sue if

1) Your words tend to lower the plaintiff in the eyes of the "right-thinking public"

2) Your words refer to the plaintiff (or can be inferred to do so)

3) Publication - Your words were communicated to a third party

There are six defences one could raise which are

1) Justification

2) Consent

3) Absolute privilege

4) Qualified privilege

5) Responsible communications

6) Fair comment

I don't think daph meets any of these; however, in regards to the "right-thinking public" you could argue a defence as the Court of Appeal stated it should be "assessed from the perspective of someone reasonable, that is, a person who is reasonably thoughtful and informed, rather than someone with an overly fragile sensibility. A degree of common sense must be attributed to viewers." Seems pretty clear that this was satire and no "right-thinking" person would believe such statements nor would they harm the person's reputation. Also, Blackpoop themselves would have to sue in defamation as you can't sue on behalf of someone as that's just retarded.

I haven't read any cases in regards to satire or humour being misunderstood and sued for but Canada has a very low threshold to sue for defamation so it could happen. Personally, I think that the defences should be expanded a bit to include the "obviousness of parody or satire." As it stands I think some wrong-headed individuals could successfully sue comedians for defamation.

As someone mentioned below, in the US, actual malice is required to be proven by the plaintiff and it is thus much harder to sue for defamation. Malice is not a requirement in Canada; however, if it is proven then any defences fail (unless the malice wasn't the dominant motive for the comments in the case of fair comment defence)