Ford fights back against defamation suit


spaminator
#1
Ford fights back against defamation suit
Antonella Artuso
Published:
April 26, 2019
Updated:
April 26, 2019 3:53 PM EDT
Brad Blair, left, and Ontario Premier Doug Ford, right
Former OPP head Brad Blair used his position to launch personal and political attacks against Premier Doug Ford to further his personal and private interests, a statement of defence filed on behalf of the Premier says.
Blair initiated a $5 million defamation lawsuit against Ford in March, saying the Premier had improperly accused him of violating the Police Services Act.
A statement of defence filed Friday by lawyer Gavin J. Tighe says Ford’s actions were not defamatory, were true and justified and fell under qualified privilege.
Fired Brad Blair vindicated by Ron Taverner withdrawal: Lawyer
Politics not a factor in Brad Blair firing: Jones
Brad Blair files $5M defamation lawsuit against Doug Ford
Brad Blair threatens to sue Ford over alleged defamation
“This action arises out of alleged defamatory comments made by Premier Ford in response to a calculated, widely publicized, public, malicious and unprovoked personal and political attack and assault made against Premier Ford by the Plaintiff, Brad Blair, who improperly used his public position as Interim Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), the highest-ranking police officer in Ontario, as a platform for such personal and political attacks designed to harm Premier Ford and advance Mr. Blair’s personal and private interests,” the statement says.
Blair had been a contender for the position of OPP Commissioner but lost out to Toronto Police Supt. Ron Taverner.
Story continues below
This advertisement has not loaded yet,
but your article continues below.
After a public backlash against the choice of Taverner, a long-time Ford family friend, Thomas Carrique was appointed to a three-year term heading up the OPP.
Blair went to court to force the provincial ombudsman to investigate Taverner’s appointment, arguing political interference, and then launched the defamation suit.
“Premier Ford made these defamatory remarks fully aware that the natural and probable consequence of making these defamatory statements would be the widespread re-publication by the Canadian media, which would be heard and viewed by millions,” Blair’s statement of claim said.
Neither Blair’s statement of claim or Ford’s statement of defence have been proven in court.
aartuso@postmedia.com
http://torontosun.com/news/provincia...efamation-suit
 
Cliffy
#2
 
Cliffy
#3
 
Ron in Regina
#4
Cliff, is that what was found in the ruling? (Paragraphs 10 & 11)...
 
DaSleeper
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

Cliff, is that what was found in the ruling? (Paragraphs 10 & 11)...

Must be true...It's on Fakebook news!
 
Ron in Regina
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

Cliff, is that what was found in the ruling? (Paragraphs 10 & 11)...

Been a couple of crazy busy days & I haven't had a chance to get back to this:

http://sasklawcourts.ca/images/docum...019SKCA040.pdf
Page 3 [10] Saskatchewan submits , by way of an alternative line of argument, that the Act is unconstitutional because it is concerned with property and civil rights and other matters of a purely local nature falling within exclusive provincial legislative authority. The Attorney General of Canada [ Canada] responds by seeking to uphold the Act as a valid exercise of Parliament’s jurisdiction under the national concern bran ch of its “P eace, Order, and good G overnment [POGG] power . The national concern branch of POGG applies to matters of national consequence that have a singleness, distinctiveness and indivisibility clearly distinguishing them from matters coming within pro vincial jurisdiction and , as well, a scale of impact on provincial jurisdiction that is compatible with the basic division of powers between Parliament and the legislatures under the Constitution. Canada contends it should be recognized, under the national concern branch , as having jurisdiction over “the cumulative dimension s of GHG emissions”. This approach must be rejected because it would allow Parliament to intrude so deeply into areas of provincial authority that the balance of federalism would be upse t. Further, it would hamper and limit provincial efforts to deal with GHG emissions.

[11] However, Parliament does have authority over a narrower POGG subject matter – the establishment of minimum national standard s of price stringency for GHG emissions . This jurisdiction has the singleness, distinctiveness and indivisibility required by the law. It also has a limited impact on the balance of federalism and leaves provinces broad scope to legislate in the GHG area . The Act is constitutionally valid because its essential character falls within the scope of this POGG authority .