In the letter, the Town identified nineteen instances of defamation in the Herald's interactive Town Hall community forums, but the threatened lawsuit focused on an article published about the professional injudicious discretions of one of the Town's Directors, Terry Alyman, who, the Herald's administrator claims; violated the civil rights of a number of our community members.

The Halton Herald has been at odds with the governing body since it first reported the adverse affects the town's decision had on Acton BIA members when Council removed parking for the merchants in the downtown Acton. In November the Herald critically reported taxpayers money being used to develop private property of politician's campaign contributors in the Halton Hills Industrial corridor while other newspapers published town press releases verbatim.

The July 6th letter addressed to the administrator demanded edits to a news article published on-line as well as 19 edits to community members comments in the Herald's Town Hall. As well, the town demanded an unconditional retraction and apology published in the community's website. Mr. Kirouac, who was shocked by the letter, stated; I could not believe the town would take such action when we have video transcripts and documented proof that the Parks Director acted, in what we believe was a biased discriminating manner which clearly infringed upon the rights of Town citizens.

We gave it a lot of consideration and determined very quickly, defending ourselves against this type of government persecution through our government's civil courts, was going to be too costly of an undertaking. As a non-profit community group, we just do not have the financial resources our government has to defend ourselves. We published a retraction, edited the story and what we believed were peoples rights to opinions and free speech in our Town Hall, but decided not to publish the apology, stated the administrator. Apologizing was going against every fibre of my moral values and I was not about to compromise those at any cost. I do not feel we've done anything wrong, stated Mr. Kirouac.

Halton Hills immediately ceased the opportunity to file civil action in Milton's Superior Civil Court of Justice. The lawsuit stated: By reason of the nature of its business, the Plaintiff Town's reputation and goodwill with the general public is of paramount importance to the ongoing business and undertaking of the Plaintiff Town, its elected representatives and its officers and employees. For the same reason, the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff Alyman is of paramount importance to the success both of his own business and undertaking on behalf of the Plaintiff Town, and also that of the Plaintiff Town itself. By defaming the Plaintiff Alyman in his capacity as an officer and employee of the Plaintiff Town, the Defendant (Al Kirouac) has defamed the Plaintiff Town and damaged the Plaintiff Towns reputation and goodwill with the general public.

Mr. Kirouac asserts: Acting as though we were living in a Communist system, Politicians of the Town think in defending the goodwill and reputation of the Town extends them the right to punish those who have raised safety concerns, publish dissent, or discriminate against those who participate or initiate police probes to investigate suspicious activity upon them and/or staff.

Mr. Kirouac stated; The 30 day deadline to file a statement in response to the Town's claim quickly approached. According to Mr. Kirouac, it wasn't enough time to research the law, find a specialty lawyer, and negotiate their services. I asked the Town's lawyer, Mr. Schaljo for an extension, informing him of my intention to file a Statement of Defence and explaining the troubles I had been experiencing in finding adequate representation for the proceeding. The lawyer did not respond, let alone acknowledged my request.

After doing some research a Statement of Defence was composed and filed along with a counter claim according to -- civil remedies under the Victims of Organized Crime Act, citing various persecutions suffered for what Mr. Kirouac believes is a direct result of publishing dissent and his participation in filing a complaint with police of suspicious activity on council and its administrators with the Halton Regional Police Services, who has since turned their investigative probe over to the OPP.

Ryder Gilliland, recently negotiated his services to the non-profit community newsgroup -- The Halton Herald.ca. In the defamation law field, Ryder has acted for some of the largest newspapers and broadcasters in Canada and the United States, and regularly provides pre-publication advice to media organizations and publishers on legal issues relating to copyright, defamation, freedom of information, publication bans and issues specific to Internet publication. Mr. Gilliland recommended, for the time being, the counter suit be dropped so we can first focus on defending the government action. Mr. Gilliland is a member of the The Advocates' Society and Ad Idem (Advocates in Defence of Free Expression).

When governments attempt to infringe upon our rights, we all should be concerned, said Mr. Kirouac. Unfortunately, in matters concerning government persecution, those cost are always transferred to us, the taxpayers. Libel is a personal matter. Clearly I stated in the article and even quoted Mr. Alyman's statement that he was acting on his own accord, and not the policies and procedures of the Town, said Mr. Kirouac.

Mr. Gilliland is motioning the Superior Court to strike the Plaintiff Town's claim. Among other technical legal issues, Mr. Gilliland asserts; The Corporation of the Town of Halton Hills is a municipality and, as such, is not entitled to claim for defamation. It is contrary to freedom of expression to allow a democratically elected governmental body a cause of action in defamation. Such a claim would inevitably have a chilling effect on public criticism of elected officials and governmental bodies. Mr. Gilliland asserts;

The words complained of are of and concerning a Town employee, not the Town. It is a basic principle that defamation is a personal cause of action based on injury to one's reputation. The subversion of this basic principle here would lead to the untenable result that whenever public employees were criticized or allegedly defamed in connection with duties, their employers, whether municipal, provincial or federal, would have a cause of action.

 

A public body suing a civilian for defamation is antithetical to freedom of expression and, therefore, unconstitutional. Every court to consider this issue in the modern era has reached the same conclusion, clearly captured by the statement of the English House of lords in Derbyshire, infra that: "It is of the higher public importance that a democratically elected government body, or indeed any governmental body, should be open to public criticism. The threat of civil action for defamation must inevitably have an inhibiting effect on freedom of speech". Section 2(b) of the Charter, of course, protects freedom of speech and the Town's claim must therefore fail.

True to the established local news Media's relationship with the Town administrators and its politicians, none of the local news events regarding the town's suit against one of its citizens or these historical Constitutional issues, reported here, in The Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail, have never been reported locally. The motion is scheduled to be heard on December 20th., 2005, in Milton Superior Court.