The original judge was satisfied that there were enough facts presented in court to rule against Mainstream.
The reason the feedlot company won the appeal was that the appeal court judge ruled that the facts supporting Don's statements that salmon feedlots kill, were not adequately illustrated on his website.
Don lost the appeal because he failed to publish the facts on a website..... Let's see what the high court rules.
Yes, the original judge was satisfied, but the appeal judges were not and they gave reasons for their ruling. I guess you can keep embracing the past if you want to though.
LOL....I know the reasons given by the appeal court judges, but in Don's case the reasons why the facts are not on his website is because (drum roll.......) he does not have any facts to put on it. In order to publish facts you actually have to have them in the first place. That takes too much time for activists like Don because they are too busy making YouTube videos and parading around like a clown in a orange prison suit. Seeing as though you like to reminisce about the first trial here is something the judge did say:
[185] There are many problems with Mr. Staniford’s credibility. The passage from his cross-examination which I quoted above, concerning what happened at the May 2006 Meeting, is but one example of where Mr. Staniford will twist facts to conform to his own personal view. Unless firmly corroborated by other reliable sources, I would not accept Mr. Staniford’s version of disputed facts, since his closed-mindedness and deep prejudices make him an unreliable reporter of facts. I have concluded that he will say almost anything to further his own agenda. - Madam Justice Adair.
As I said before in the first trial, Don will keep doing what he is doing because they are the only tactics he knows. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court of Canada would rule on this, but I will go out on a limb here and say that facts probably important to those judges also. Those darn facts! Hold another fundraising gala and say it is for "protecting wild salmon"...lol.
I went back to the previous threads and I found this interesting:
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. - StillAqua
Author
Topic: Cermaq Wins Appeal Against Don Saniford (Read 11448 times)