Why Gregor Robertson and Geoff Meggs may continue libel suit against NPA's Kirk LaPointe
Coun. Geoff Meggs has made it clear that he doesn't plan to drop a lawsuit that he and the mayor filed against NPA mayoral candidate Kirk LaPointe.
This is the case even though Meggs and Gregor Robertson were reelected on the Vision Vancouver slate and LaPointe was defeated.
The legal action was filed earlier this month after LaPointe started throwing around the "corruption" word in connection with a visit that Meggs made to CUPE 1004. The union donated $34,000 to Vision Vancouver.
I've written in that past that there are intriguing questions raised by this lawsuit.
Meanwhile, LaPointe has claimed that his remarks during the campaign constituted "fair comment", which is a legal defence for defamation.
The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that fair comment doesn't apply if the defendant was motivated by "express malice", which must be demonstrated by the plaintiffs.
Regardless, the lawyer for Meggs and Robertson, Bryan Baynham, has maintained that the allegedly defamatory comments were statements of fact, not opinion, and therefore the defence of fair comment wouldn't apply.
So why would Meggs and Robertson continue with the defamation suit even after they won and LaPointe was defeated?
Aside from trying to preserve their reputations, which is often at the heart of these actions, there are other benefits to Meggs, Robertson, and Vision Vancouver. They include:
• The lawsuit has the potential to drain the NPA's financial resources (as has already been pointed out by political commentator Bill Tieleman).
• In lawsuits like this, there's a disclosure process. LaPointe and the NPA will be required to turn over all emails, memos, and other correspondence related to the legal claim. These documents are privileged at the time of disclosure, which is for the purpose of a pretrial process called examination for discovery. However, these confidential emails can later be entered as evidence. This will offer the media a chance to report on the internal workings of the NPA campaign and possibly demonstrate the role that party funders or board members may have had in the framing of issues.
• The legal action sends a message to every other NPA politician that he or she had better be careful about criticizing Vision Vancouver's relationship with unions or face a potential lawsuit.
• LaPointe ran a strong campaign, capturing more votes than any NPA mayoral candidate in history. As long as he faces a defamation suit, he's less likely to go on any unrestrained rants against Meggs or Robertson in the media because that could have an impact on damages, should LaPointe lose.
After the lawsuit was filed, LaPointe accused his opponents of intimidation. But the court case had the effect of toning down the NPA mayoral candidate's rhetoric in the final week of the campaign.
Ironically, that could have helped Meggs narrowly get elected to the 10th and final spot on Vancouver city council.
Comments
14 Comments
Talk about irony
Nov 17, 2014 at 1:20pm
This lawsuit is being paid for by the developers and unions that financed their campaigns.
This will quietly go into the night once the media spotlight is off. These two are moving on to federal politics after this term and the last thing they need is more attention on this matter. There is too much to lose (criminal charges, bad PR) and nothing to gain (a few thousand dollars?) by bringing this to court.
Stop fooling yourself. This was about politics and winning this election. End of story.
ursa minor
Nov 17, 2014 at 1:25pm
Lapointe's 'corruption' allegation is little more than pre-emptive Union busting in anticipation of what he thought would be an NPA victory, and the opportunity to finish the attack of city workers that Sam Sullivan started in 2007. Lapointe wanted to shame the Union out of legitimate political action, making it far easier to put forward a case for contracting out against a "corrupt" municipal Union Local.
If Lapointe wasn't such a right-wing blowhard coward he could have used the Vision/CUPE 1004 relationship to make a case for sorely needed Campaign Finance Reform in BC's municipal elections, but that would have meant his NPA would have to derail its own gravy train from sympathetic developers, oil & gas companies and the Fraser Institute.
TCG
Nov 17, 2014 at 1:55pm
This is a matter of ethics and should be perused by the Mayor and Councillor. The tone of political debate in this country has become increasingly distasteful and negative and it would be worthwhile for some markers to be put down and for candidates to know there are consequences when they lie and/ or manipulate information and malign opponents in unfair ways.
MD
Nov 17, 2014 at 2:37pm
Talk about irony
"This lawsuit is being paid for by the developers and unions that financed their campaigns."
Indeed. You must be tone deaf to the concept to post what you did with your screen name
Suffice to say, LaPointe's defence will be paid for by developers and the Fraser Institute patrons who bankrolled him.
I am sure you will somehow argue that is different with the utmost sincerity.
Bob
Nov 17, 2014 at 3:45pm
Great use to the judicial system. Clog up the courts time with a pointless lawsuit so you can gain a political advantage. This is 100% what is wrong with politics and why everyone hates politicians.
Accountability
Nov 17, 2014 at 3:54pm
Kirk LaPointe made some serious allegations against Robertson and Meggs. If the allegations are false, simply amounting to a smear campaign, he should be held to account in the Courts.
In the western world we enjoy an invaluable privilege of freedom of expression. It must be cherished, and must not be abused to defame others.
Defamation of this kind only turns voters off of politics and degrades public confidence in our elected officials, and politics in general. We need free expression to hold public officials to account, but we must not approve of those that spread lies that damage the reputations of others and degrade public faith in our democratic institutions.
Kirk can say whatever he wants as long as it is true... or just his opinion. If he lies, however, we need to throw the book at him.
James Blatchford
Nov 17, 2014 at 4:40pm
"Corrupt" is the most injurious of allegations to made against a public official. Thankfully, words do matter in this country.
West Coast Woman
Nov 17, 2014 at 7:19pm
I believe Gregor and Geoff sill lose the case because they can't prove they were harmed or suffered quantifiable damages.
Furthermore, disclosure goes both ways. Vision will also have to disclose all its emails etc., which could prove damaging to their cause. At the very least, it will show people exactly how Vision operates, using lawsuits and the media to silence critics in order to advance their own political cause.
As for "truth" in advertising, I think Vision's ads were every bit as critical and misleading. They may have told you what Vision wanted to do (build a subway), but they didn't tell you HOW Vision intended to do it (by giving their developer friends another large part of Vancouver to profit from) by building more highrise "view" condos all along Broadway to sell to foreigners in order to finance their subway project. They sold the subway as an environmental issue, when they really see it as another real estate development project.
The subway is not really the goal; it is merely a means to the end - which is to sell off more of Vancouver to foreign owners who will pay big bucks for all that "view" property along Broadway.
Bob
Nov 17, 2014 at 7:20pm
Accountability- the part you seem to be missing is that all politicians lie.. That is what they do. They lie during the election and then follow it up with all new lies after the election. That is the reason the public has no confidence in our elected officials.
cosmicsync
Nov 17, 2014 at 8:27pm
Robertson and Meggs must pursue this legal action, for the reasons already stated by commenters above. Calling someone corrupt is not fair comment and LaPointe, with his background in journalism - and particularily as former ombudsman at the CBC - must have known this.
If he didn't, it leads one to question his judgement and understanding of Canadian law.
More importantly, this is a test of what citizens of this country will tolertate from those running for political office. This was no off the cuff remark. If he gets away with it we will see more of the same or worse in future campaigns.
For this reason, I hope Robertson and Meggs will see this through to the end.