PAGE TWO

Ontario Superior Court Judge hears motion to dismiss Government's course of action to sue community newsgroup.

December 20th, 2005

An Ontario Superior Court Judge in Milton was presented a motion by Attorney Ryder Gilliland who represents the administrator of The Halton Herald.ca, Al Kirouac, listed as the defendant in a libel defamation suit launched by The Corporation of the Town of Halton Hills and Terry Alyman.

The lawsuit basically stated the town felt, because the Herald defamed Terry Alyman personally, the government (The Corporation of the Town of Halton Hills) should have recourse to sue those who dare criticize its employees.

The Town's claim states:

"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 Town's reputation and goodwill with the general public."

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.

The Judge asked the Town's solicitor John Schaljo if he had any evidence in the article directly linking Mr. Kirouac to defaming the Town, of which Mr. Schaljo stated there was none.

The judge gave the issue considerable thought and even brought up the current issues of the Sponsorship Scandal and opposition leader, Stephen Harper calling the Liberal Government corrupt.

The Judge has reserved judgment until after the New Year.

More on original story

Readers may contact the editor at;

Mail: The Halton Herald.ca, P.O. Box 76, Acton, ON. L7J 2M2.

Email: editor@thehaltonherald.ca

Help/FAQ Privacy Policy