Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[chris gadsden]

http://donstaniford.typepad.com/my-blog/2012/12/the-cost-of-defending-free-speech-.html

[Dave]

Don who??

[chris gadsden]

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/national/legalfee+reprieve+victorious+salmonfarming+critic+censured/7723131/story.html#ixzz2FY4Immqz

[shuswapsteve]

[chris gadsden]

Don't worry the funds will be there. Merry Christmas by the way.

[Easywater]

Seems rediculous that the judge could reduce the amount of repayment of legal costs based on his actions in court.

Look at this link of the full judgement statment: http://donstaniford.typepad.com/files/costs-judgment-and-disposition-19-dec-2012.pdf

Don Staniford won his defamation case but the judge significantly reduced the amount of his legal fees paid by the fish farm company.
Usually, all legal costs are paid by the loser.

[4] On behalf of Mr. Staniford, Mr. Sutherland (Staniford's lawyer) submits that there is no proper
basis to deprive Mr. Staniford, as the successful party at trial, of his costs. In Mr.
Sutherland’s submission, to the extent that some misconduct on Mr. Staniford’s part
can be identified, an order depriving him of costs of this litigation would be a
punishment wholly out of proportion to any such misconduct.

It looks like the court has awarded payment of only 25% of his legal costs as a penalty for:

- calling the court a "kangaroo court"
- belittling witnesses called on behalf of the fish farm company
- restarting his website outside fo Canada

The judge also critized Staniford's lawyer for not acurately estimating how long cross-examination would take on fish farm witness Dr Gallo forcing them to use video conferencing for the extended cross-examination.

[shuswapsteve]

What about the rest of the judgement including how the judge applied (including prior case precedent) Rule 14-9(9)?  Don only has himself to blame.  For instance, even after the judge discussed Don’s comments towards Mainstream’s witnesses in court, Don continued his comments about them outside the courtroom and on YouTube.  He even accused a First Nation’s band for taking “blood money” from Cermaq in social media.  At every turn, Don basically thumbed his nose at court proceedings.  Activists like Don and Alexandra feel that they are somewhat immune from court (or judicial inquiry) sanction when they are using social media.   Meanwhile, council on both sides acted professionally in the opinion of the judge.  I am surprised that Don’s lawyer was not considering Rule 14-9 (9) while Don was acting like a donkey.   If Don would have kept his nose clean during the trial this would have ended differently for him.  He likely would have ended up having all his court costs covered.  Instead, he is now looking to be bailed out by his friends for his own idiocy.

[alwaysfishn]

Activists like Don and Alexandra feel that they are somewhat immune from court (or judicial inquiry) sanction when they are using social media.   

I don't think either of them feel they are immune from the judicial system..... Their whole focus has always been to expose the feedlots and the damage they are doing to wild salmon.

When industry and government are aligned to push through an agenda the only effective way to counteract that is through activism. By their very nature activists push societal boundaries. If they didn't, government and industry would steam roller through with their agendas.

This judge did the right thing and threw out a ridiculous freedom of speech case against Don, but she decided to penalize him for his approach in the only legal way she could by awarding only a portion of the costs he would normally have been entitled to. For Don it is still a victory....  and maybe a learning experience.

[Dave]

For Don it is still a victory....  and maybe a learning experience.

His supporters better hope he learned from this as it should be near impossible to solicit more money from people if they read Justice Adair's assessment of his character.
I know you will never admit it, at least publicly, but don't you just wish you had a more plausible and less arrogant champion for your cause?

[shuswapsteve]

The thing is that people like Don and Alexandra can still have their beliefs, but when they are a participant in a judicial process there is an expectation for them to act respectfully and abide by the rules of the court (or commissioner in the case of the Cohen Inquiry).   If you or I were in court or part of a judicial inquiry we would be expected to behave a certain way also.  Nature activists may push societal boundaries, but they do not play by their own rules once they are in the courts.   This latest judgement regarding court costs reaffirms that.  Activists cannot turn to the courts to reaffirm their beliefs then decide to disrespect them because their cause is somewhat “just” and “noble” in their own minds.

Of course a person like Don thinks he is immune.  That’s why he acted the way he did.  He used the court as his own stage.  That’s why people like him go right away to social media because they feel like once they are out of the confines of the court they are free to do as they please.  Fortunately for Don and Alex the courts and commissions have been quite forgiving and have allowed them some leeway with their beliefs; however, when someone like Don flagrantly disregards court instructions and disrespect for the court proceedings he should be rebuked financially.  Although this recent ruling on costs is out of the norm, the important thing to note is that the rules of the court allow the judge to do this and it has been done before.  Of course Don will see this as a victory because he needs to frame this in such a way to make it appear like he is some small crusader against the big multinationals; instead, he is just an “unreliable reporter of the facts” who “ignores and disdainfully dismisses peer-reviewed science”.

The real folks losing in this are the ones that are paying Don’s costs.  Will Don learn from this?  In my opinion, Don is too arrogant to fully understand why the judge did what she did.  In order for Don to fully learn from this his own supporters need to hold him more accountable.  Good luck there as Don is seen by his supporters as a positive voice for their cause.  There are many worthwhile fisheries projects out there run by volunteers that could use $8,300; instead it is going to someone that cannot keep his big mouth shut – even just for a little while during a trial.  It seems like money is not a limitation for Don so perhaps he should be happy and see this as a victory.

[alwaysfishn]

You're repeating yourself Steve and in the process are arguing with no one......   I did indicate that this may be a learning experience for Don. 

What you conveniently failed to point out is Mainstream's flagrant abuse of the judicial system. Accessing their corporate coffers, they used the court system to attempt to bully an individual with limited financial resources into suppressing his right to free speech. If every corporation did that, we as individuals would be afraid to voice an opinion for fear of being driven to financial ruin.

The judge rightfully dismissed the charges against Don and except for Don's outspoken nature would have also awarded Don with all costs. Don was rightfully upset with Mainstreams bullying actions, unfortunately the judge viewed it as disrespect for the court. However there should be no doubt that the case is a victory for Don, and hopefully a precedent setting lesson for the corporate bullies out there!

[StillAqua]

Don't get your shorts in a knot over two strange rulings from the same judge. A lot could change over the next year or so...the appeal court, if they agree to review the case, will need to look at the legalese of why the judge said "defamation with malice" is "fair comment". If they disagree with the first justice, there could be a whole new trial.....and more court costs for someone.

[shuswapsteve]

You really believe that this may be a learning experience for Don, AF?  It sounds like you keep defending the way Don conducted himself, but want to shy away from openly admitting it.  Even you said that Don “was rightfully upset with Mainstream’s bullying actions” and “unfortunately the judge viewed it as disrespect for the court”.  How else would the judge have viewed this attitude towards the court and its witnesses?  What does disrespect for witnesses which included internet postings mocking their physical appearance have to do with nature activism – or specifically with the trial itself?  What does calling the trial a “kangaroo court” have to do with nature activism?  What does accusing a First Nations band of accepting “blood money” have to do with nature activism?  What does disrespecting the court proceedings (which included ignoring specific instructions from the judge) have anything to do with nature activism?

Mainstream didn’t abuse the judicial system, AF.  You are only using that just to justify Don’s actions which are really inexcusable.  If anything, Don abused the judicial system by increasing the length and expense of the trial even when it had nothing to do with his defence of fair comment.  Mainstream felt that Don’s campaign was defamatory and had every right to take this to the courts.  Courts are not there just for people like Don and Alex – they are also there for others you may not agree with.  Even the judge felt that Don’s actions were defamatory.  What it came down to was the interpretation “fair comment” in this case.   In this respect, Don was succeeded in his defence of fair comment; however, being the victor in this case does not mean that Don should not be held accountable for his inappropriate behaviour.  No matter what Don thought about Mainstream, he could have very well defended his position without acting like a lunatic.  He was bullied?…lol….Whatever…lol.  It is hilarious that you see Don as some victim of bullying.  The only person acting like a bully was Don who kept demeaning witness during the trial even after being told not to.  Everyone else acted like they should during a court trial – with respect for the process.

[shuswapsteve]

Don't get your shorts in a knot over two strange rulings from the same judge. A lot could change over the next year or so...the appeal court, if they agree to review the case, will need to look at the legalese of why the judge said "defamation with malice" is "fair comment". If they disagree with the first justice, there could be a whole new trial.....and more court costs for someone.

That is ture, but even if Mainstream did win in this case in an appeal I do not believe that Don would stop with this particular type of campaign.  Don loves the attention too much.  He likes to slug it out and get dirty.  Alex is smarter because she knows how to duck and weave better - even knows how to avoid questions in a graceful way.  As long as Don has people to bail him out he will just keep going.  Hey, it's not his money, so why stop?   

[alwaysfishn]

Your comments reveal how blinded you are about the feedlot business. At least I am looking at the situation objectively.

Next you'll be telling us that Mainstream isn't polluting our oceans and killing our wild salmon......