Kirk LaPointe calls Vision Vancouver lawsuit attempt to "silence" the NPA

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      Mayoral candidate Kirk LaPointe says he will "not back down" after being hit with a defamation lawsuit by Vision Vancouver over NPA radio and TV ads.

      At a news conference today (November 7), LaPointe charged that the lawsuit is an attempt by Vision to “silence” him and the NPA in the final stage of the election campaign.

      “They can sue all they want, but they’re not going to silence me or my team in the final days of this campaign,” said LaPointe. “We’re going to defend ourselves vigorously and we’re going to defend the interests of the city.”

      LaPointe accused Vision of “fabrications” and “intimidation” during the election campaign.

      “I’ve known bullies in my time, and their actions are the same,” LaPointe charged. “They hound and they scare. They know you’re unlikely to respond, and when you stand up to them, they cry foul as if you’re the aggressor.”

      Vision Vancouver said Thursday (November 6) that the NPA began running paid TV and radio ads that contained "false and defamatory words concerning the Mayor and Councillor [Geoff] Meggs". Their lawsuit seeks to have the ads pulled, in addition to a "complete retraction", damages, and costs.

      LaPointe said the NPA does not plan to stop running the ads.

      “I’m going to say exactly what I’ve been saying all along, I’m not going to change my phrasing, I’m not going to do any of that,” he said.

      He added the party is determining what its legal response will be.




      Nov 7, 2014 at 2:00pm

      Any party that resorts to attack ads is not worthy of office.


      Nov 7, 2014 at 2:51pm

      I assume you're talking about Vision Vancouver? :-)

      They've based their entire six years of governemnt on attacking individuals, community centres, neighbourhoods and other political parties.

      That's quite a record they have, there.


      Nov 7, 2014 at 3:41pm

      I think the NPA has crossed the line here. It's one thing to attack someone on policy... but accusing them of wrongdoing when the facts don't line up? Shaky ground. I'm glad someone is holding them to account.


      Nov 7, 2014 at 4:08pm

      "We’re going to defend ourselves vigorously..."

      It's a little hard to campaign while you're defending yourself. I'm sure this hasn't been lost on Vision.


      Nov 7, 2014 at 5:47pm

      Vision Vancouver crossed the line when they promised sweetheart deals in exchange for campaign donations.


      Nov 7, 2014 at 5:53pm

      What ever happened to Lapoint's "ethical pledge"? Oops. Guess he forgot about that in the hurry to use the usual Harperite smear tactics. Same old same old No Platform Association.

      susan smith

      Nov 7, 2014 at 11:33pm

      LaPointe says he won't back down in the final days before the election. Watch him run with his tail between his legs immediately after the election; in a defamation suit, the defendant (LaPointe and the NPA) has the burden of proof. He can't deny his video-taped commercials.


      Nov 8, 2014 at 9:26am

      The suit is a joke. No attempt to get immediate injunctive relief. If the allegedly defamatory comments are so egregious and the supposed impact (i.e. affect voters choice in the municipal election) so significant, VV should be seeking immediate relief. An employer can go to court and get an injunction against illegal /secondary picketing in 24-48 hours. No urgency from VV. That tells me the suit is a frivolous political tactic. Vision will withdraw its pleadings win or lose. win... no point in proceeding. Lose, again no point in proceeding. They have big upside risk as full disclosure means all the ins and outs of the relationship Meggs has with CUPE 1004, 15 etc will be examined under the courts powers to order full disclosure such as union meeting notes etc.

      400 ppm

      Nov 8, 2014 at 1:01pm

      Representative Democracy™:


      A: Capitalist. See B
      B: Capitalist. See A

      Petit bourgeoisie.
      Lawyers: Employed by A or B. Perpetuate competition mythology.
      Journalist: Employed by B or A. Create imaginary differences between A,B.

      Fools: Imagine making an X on paper matters. Carbohydrate and screen addled.
      Unusually dexterous thumbs. Unable to concentrate. No dignity.


      Nov 8, 2014 at 1:45pm

      Hey 400ppm, I would characterize a fool as someone who ASSumes everything is rigged and that everybody else is an idiot. I would also characterize that person as someone who finds it easier to just speak ill of others than put in the work to see who is really trying to pull the wool over their eyes. And yes, Gregor is grasping at straws. One thing Skippy wrote is very important for everyone to remember. If this actually goes to trial, Vision will have to explain everything about the "deal" made with the unions. No wonder everyone is tired of this bunch in city hall and their union and developers pals.