A headline like that made for very tempting blogging fodder. Big bad corporation slaps down plucky mother who's trying to keep the neighbourhood safe for her kids. But I'm not one to take an article at face value. I wanted to learn a little more for myself.

The woman's website was down, due to heavy traffic, but the Google cache allows one to read her discourse sans photos. She may have some genuine complaints, but without the photos it's hard to tell how severe these infractions may be. But what becomes very clear is that this person definitely does not like the developers. So a couple of Google searches and the picture becomes a little clearer.

Louisette Lanteigne states "They call me an environmental activist, but I see myself as more of a mom who's just trying to be heard".

Given that Louisette's contact info is listed on an activist network, and that she is a leading member of a number of activist groups, I think the moniker of activist is fair. And while the story she tells the Canadian Press reporter is one of dangerous debris in the areas children are playing, what she's said in the past was "I want to make sure the forests are not destroyed before we have the chance to see what role they may play in our ecosystem and in the preservation of these birds."

Unfortunately, I was unable to locate any court documents related to this case online, and the articles are mostly focused on the 'David vs. Goliath' aspect of the story, giving only the barest of detail from the company's standpoint.

While it seems clear this is a case of a woman who is opposed to any development in that region and will do what she can to bring a halt to it, there is not enough info to determine if her words constitute liable.

The lawyer for the developer is confident that they will prevail in court and public opinion of the company will be undamaged as a result of their triumph in court. I have to disagree.

The story was originally one of 'environmentalism activist protests developer in defence of rare bird'. While her website may have been libelous, it was very much a local issue.

The story has been reframed as 'big business bullies a mother of three'. This is now a national news item and a global topic of discussion. A win in court will be viewed as 'big business buying a victory'. A loss would be a complete disaster from a PR standpoint.

Had the developer been content to just seek having the libelous material removed and a formal apology issued, they could have held the moral high-ground and continued to frame the story as 'plucky entrepreneurs face difficulties with fringe of the community'. Had they started a blog in which they detailed the inconsistencies and inaccuracies of Louisette's claims, they could have held the moral high-ground and saved several hundred dollars in lawyer's fees. They may have even garnered some positive press in the business trades. But by pulling out the big guns and demanding two million in damages for what appears to be a minor annoyance ... all moral high-ground is lost and the story has been framed so that, from a PR point of view, the developer can't win.

The lesson for today: never play an ace when a two will do.