Judge throws out lawsuit alleging B.C. government has failed to protect the Sasquatch

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      The Supreme Court of British Columbia has dismissed a lawsuit against the provincial government that claims authorities have failed to protect the Sasquatch as "likely a species at risk, threatened species and/or endangered".

      Earlier this year, B.C. citizen Todd Standing filed a notice of claim that asked the B.C. government to declare that the Sasquatch is a "hominoid or primate...type of species, also known as a bigfoot, and is an indigenous mammal living within British Columbia".

      In failing to do so, Standing alleged, the province "infringed the fundamental human rights of the Plaintiff as it relates to his concerns regarding Sasquatch".

      In response, the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development argued the plaintiff's claims were "based on assumptions and speculation, lacks an air of reality, and the alleged statements of fact are ultimately incapable of proof".

      On August 31, the Honourable Justice Ball found that argument has merit.

      "The Province is alleged to have not acted to substantiate or acknowledge the existence of the Sasquatch," his decision reads. "This is not treatment that differentiates the claimant from others, or those who believe in the Sasquatch from those who do not. There is nothing pleaded to indicate that any response or action was required by the defendant."

      On the question of whether the plaintiff's rights were violated by the province having failed to acknowledge the existence of the Sasquatch, the judge ruled in the defendant's favour on the grounds that "a belief in the existence of the Sasquatch is not an immutable personal characteristic".

      "The government’s non-acknowledgement of the Sasquatch does not in any way prohibit or restrict the plaintiff’s ability to express his thoughts, beliefs, and opinions regarding the Sasquatch," the decision reads. "On the facts pleaded, there is no indication how the Province’s action — or lack of action — restricts the plaintiff’s freedom of expression."

      The case was dismissed. Further, the judge found that the province is entitled to costs, which should be paid by the plaintiff.

      Comments