The makings of a classic textbook SLAPP?
Good Day Readers:
We first encountered this story when it was also carried recently in an online edition of The Winnipeg Free Press. As a SLAPP survivor it naturally piqued our interest.
To explain. Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation is a term first coined by American legal scholars. The cartoon explains the concept much, much better than we ever could - you've got to love the name of the mythical law firm!
In a defamation lawsuit launched by the Canadian taxpayer funded Manitoba Metis Federation against this site's precursor (CyberSmokeSignals) that dragged on for several years, the Plaintiffs demanded the moon but in the end got a small shovel of very poor quality dirt. You can view a listing of the 249 court filings by visiting Manitoba Justice's online File Registry - www.jus.gov.mb.ca; File Number: CI 05-01-41955 (MMF et al. versus Terry Belhumeur et al.)
So naturally we decided to undertake a little research. Here's what we found.
Togneri Sics His Lawyers on Us
Remember the story of Sebastien Togneri, an aide to former Public Works minister Christian Paradis, who had demanded a bureaucrat "unrelease" information requested through an Access to Information request by a Canadian Press journalist?
Well, long story short, after the RCMP decided to drop the investigation into whether Mr. Togneri should be charged, three groups, ours, the BC FOIP Association and Newspapers Canada wrote a joint letter to the chair of the Commons committee asking them to review the Act. The reason being, if an aide can so clearly interfere with an access request and it not be a violation of the Access to Information Act, the Act is thereby toothless.
Apparently Mr. Togneri didn't take to kindly to our three groups opting not just to drop this issue.
Unable to use his position to demand we "unrelease" the letter, he's opted to have his lawyers try to send us a message.
So, our three groups were served with notice under the Libel and Slander Act of Ontario. This is the first step before a lawsuit is filed against us for defamation. They now have three months to file suit. It's unclear as to who is paying the lawyer bills.
To be completely honest, this issue is one of more than a dozen the CTF is currently working on in Ottawa and I was ok with putting it on the backburner to work on something else -- but not anymore.
Their claim is total B.S. and they likely know it. Mr. Togneri should have done his homework first. It wouldn't have taken much digging to realize the CTF isn't easily intimidated. We will not back off just because you pay a lawyer to send us a strongly-worded letter. In fact, sending us such a letter with such weak arguments, makes it clear to us you have no intention of actually filing suit and that you are just trying to intimidate us into silence. Either that or you are trying to bog us down and make us incur lawyer costs that you are guessing we cannot afford.
Either way, you guessed wrong.
By: Scott HennigPosted: September 21, 2011
Scott Hennig
National Communications Manager
Canadian Taxpayers Federation
ab.director@taxpayer.com
By now our appetite had been seriously whetted. Who is Sebastien Togneri? What does he look like? What does he do for a living?
Turns out Mr. Togneri is this handsome looking fellow.
According to a September 22, 2011 article by Canadian Press Parliamentary Correspondent Jennifer Ditchburn, which appears on http://www.ipolitics.ca/:
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2011/09/22/former-conservative-aide-trying-to-scare-commons-committee-ndp/
"Togneri left government in 2011 but resurfaced during the spring 2011 federal election as a campaign volunteer with a Conservative candidate in Edmonton. He quickly left the campaign after his involvement was revealed by the Canadian Press."
Since then the trail seems to have gone cold, however, it will warm up very quickly should his lawyer choose to file a Statement of Claim on his behalf.
Next it was who is Lavery Law (http://lavery.ca/lavery-laywer-firm/) the firm with the bland webpage representing Sabestien Togneri and his lawyer Mr. Paul K. Lepson who sent what amounts to a defamation warning letter to Vancouver-based Information and Privacy Association, Toronto's Dailies Newspapers Canada and Mr. Hennig of The Canadian Taxpayers Federation - you know the old, "Govern yourself accordingly or else" attorneys are fond of saying. You can see Mr. Lepson's missive in the have his lawyers try to send us a message link cited above
Lavery Law boasts a large stable of lawyers based in Montreal, Quebec City and Ottaws. As for Mr. Paul K. Lepson like Mr. Togneri he's the handsome fellow pictured below.
Our sense is this story has the potential to grow legs very quickly resulting in a unique behind-the- scenes rare look at how Ottawa really works especially if Statements of Claim and Defence are filed along with the fascinating Affidavits that inevitably follow. Better than a Big Fat cuban cigar, single malt scotch and sex all at once!
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
__________________________________________________
ONLINE EDITION
Former Tory aide fights back over criticism of interference in access to info
By: Dean Beeby
September 21, 2011
A lawyer for Sebastien Togneri has sent a letter to three lobby groups, warning them to back off from making "false and defamatory" statements.
The September 1 missive takes issue with a letter sent to the chair of a House of Commons committee by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Newspapers Canada and the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association.
The three groups asked the committee to review the Access to Information Act after the RCMP announced in August that it was dropping its investigation into Togneri because a criminal investigation was "unwarranted."
The Togneri case set off a political firestorm when it was revealed by The Canadian Press that he had ordered the "unrelease" of a sensitive document that the Public Works Department was set to provide to the news agency after a request under the Access to Information Act.
Togneri at the time was a senior aide to then-Public Works minister Christian Paradis.
Canada's information commissioner launched a year-long investigation that concluded early this year that Togneri had interfered with the release of a record, even though he had no legal authority to do so.
Suzanne Legault recommended the RCMP investigate the matter, with reference to Section 67.1 of the Access to Information Act, which imposes fines and jail time to anyone who even counsels the withholding of documents.
Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose then called in the Mounties, who later dropped their preliminary probe.
The three watchdog groups asked Parliament to find out why the RCMP ended its investigation into Togneri, who once appeared before a Commons committee to acknowledge he had made a "mistake."
"The RCMP decision to abandon this investigation is extremely troubling," John Hinds, president of Newspapers Canada, said in a new release at the time.
"It appears to leave people most likely to interfere with ATI (Access to Information) requests above the law, and that just cannot stand."
But Togneri's lawyer played down the "mistake," saying in his September 1 letter that his client never interfered with the release of the document.
"Mr. Togneri simply hastily questioned why a lengthy document was being released when the information actually sought was contained in only one short section of it," wrote Paul K. Lepsoe of the Ottawa firm Lavery, de Billy.
"He never intended or instructed that information actually sought should not be released."
Scott Hennig of the taxpayers' group rejected Lepsoe's letter, which is a first step under Ontario's Libel and Slander Act.
"Their claim is total B.S. and they likely know it," he wrote on the organization's website.
"Mr. Togneri should have done his homework first. It wouldn't have taken much digging to realize the CTF isn't easily intimidated. We will not back off just because you pay a lawyer to send us a strongly-worded letter.
"In fact, sending us such a letter with such weak arguments, makes it clear to us you have no intention of actually filing suit and that you are just trying to intimidate us into silence. Either that or you are trying to bog us down and make us incur lawyer costs that you are guessing we cannot afford.
"Either way, you guessed wrong."
Under Ontario law, Togneri now has three months to file a defamation suit.
The RCMP's abandoned investigation is the second time the Mounties have declined to lay charges in a high-profile case involving Section 67.1. Last fall, officers decided no charges were warranted after a two-year investigation into the deliberate destruction of emails at the National Gallery of Canada.
Legault also found clear evidence in that case that public servants were counselled to destroy records.
No one has ever been charged under Section 67.1, which was added to the act in 1999 after scandals in which defence and health records had been destroyed to avoid embarrassing revelations.
The Commons access committee, which meets Thursday, is chaired by an opposition member, the NDP's Nathan Cullen, who has said he wants to examine the case.
Last month, Togneri welcomed the RCMP decision for "clearing me of any wrongdoing." He called Legault's investigation of him "grandstanding."
Togneri left government in 2010, and was removed from the federal election campaign of a Tory candidate in Edmonton in April when his role there became public.
Legault has launched other investigations of alleged political interference in access-to-information at Public Works, Foreign Affairs and National Defence, based on specific allegations brought to her attention. The reports are expected over the next year.
Her office is also conducting a self-initiated investigation into systematic interference in the access-to-information process at eight major departments: National Defence, Public Safety, CIDA, the Privy Council Office, Health Canada, Heritage Canada, Natural Resources Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency. That report is expected sometime next year.
We first encountered this story when it was also carried recently in an online edition of The Winnipeg Free Press. As a SLAPP survivor it naturally piqued our interest.
To explain. Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation is a term first coined by American legal scholars. The cartoon explains the concept much, much better than we ever could - you've got to love the name of the mythical law firm!
In a defamation lawsuit launched by the Canadian taxpayer funded Manitoba Metis Federation against this site's precursor (CyberSmokeSignals) that dragged on for several years, the Plaintiffs demanded the moon but in the end got a small shovel of very poor quality dirt. You can view a listing of the 249 court filings by visiting Manitoba Justice's online File Registry - www.jus.gov.mb.ca; File Number: CI 05-01-41955 (MMF et al. versus Terry Belhumeur et al.)So naturally we decided to undertake a little research. Here's what we found.
Togneri Sics His Lawyers on UsRemember the story of Sebastien Togneri, an aide to former Public Works minister Christian Paradis, who had demanded a bureaucrat "unrelease" information requested through an Access to Information request by a Canadian Press journalist?
Well, long story short, after the RCMP decided to drop the investigation into whether Mr. Togneri should be charged, three groups, ours, the BC FOIP Association and Newspapers Canada wrote a joint letter to the chair of the Commons committee asking them to review the Act. The reason being, if an aide can so clearly interfere with an access request and it not be a violation of the Access to Information Act, the Act is thereby toothless.
Apparently Mr. Togneri didn't take to kindly to our three groups opting not just to drop this issue.
Unable to use his position to demand we "unrelease" the letter, he's opted to have his lawyers try to send us a message.
So, our three groups were served with notice under the Libel and Slander Act of Ontario. This is the first step before a lawsuit is filed against us for defamation. They now have three months to file suit. It's unclear as to who is paying the lawyer bills.
To be completely honest, this issue is one of more than a dozen the CTF is currently working on in Ottawa and I was ok with putting it on the backburner to work on something else -- but not anymore.
Their claim is total B.S. and they likely know it. Mr. Togneri should have done his homework first. It wouldn't have taken much digging to realize the CTF isn't easily intimidated. We will not back off just because you pay a lawyer to send us a strongly-worded letter. In fact, sending us such a letter with such weak arguments, makes it clear to us you have no intention of actually filing suit and that you are just trying to intimidate us into silence. Either that or you are trying to bog us down and make us incur lawyer costs that you are guessing we cannot afford.
Either way, you guessed wrong.
By: Scott HennigPosted: September 21, 2011
Scott HennigNational Communications Manager
Canadian Taxpayers Federation
ab.director@taxpayer.com
By now our appetite had been seriously whetted. Who is Sebastien Togneri? What does he look like? What does he do for a living?
Turns out Mr. Togneri is this handsome looking fellow.
According to a September 22, 2011 article by Canadian Press Parliamentary Correspondent Jennifer Ditchburn, which appears on http://www.ipolitics.ca/: http://www.ipolitics.ca/2011/09/22/former-conservative-aide-trying-to-scare-commons-committee-ndp/
"Togneri left government in 2011 but resurfaced during the spring 2011 federal election as a campaign volunteer with a Conservative candidate in Edmonton. He quickly left the campaign after his involvement was revealed by the Canadian Press."
Since then the trail seems to have gone cold, however, it will warm up very quickly should his lawyer choose to file a Statement of Claim on his behalf.
Next it was who is Lavery Law (http://lavery.ca/lavery-laywer-firm/) the firm with the bland webpage representing Sabestien Togneri and his lawyer Mr. Paul K. Lepson who sent what amounts to a defamation warning letter to Vancouver-based Information and Privacy Association, Toronto's Dailies Newspapers Canada and Mr. Hennig of The Canadian Taxpayers Federation - you know the old, "Govern yourself accordingly or else" attorneys are fond of saying. You can see Mr. Lepson's missive in the have his lawyers try to send us a message link cited above
Lavery Law boasts a large stable of lawyers based in Montreal, Quebec City and Ottaws. As for Mr. Paul K. Lepson like Mr. Togneri he's the handsome fellow pictured below.
Our sense is this story has the potential to grow legs very quickly resulting in a unique behind-the- scenes rare look at how Ottawa really works especially if Statements of Claim and Defence are filed along with the fascinating Affidavits that inevitably follow. Better than a Big Fat cuban cigar, single malt scotch and sex all at once!Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
__________________________________________________
ONLINE EDITION
Former Tory aide fights back over criticism of interference in access to info
By: Dean Beeby
September 21, 2011
A lawyer for Sebastien Togneri has sent a letter to three lobby groups, warning them to back off from making "false and defamatory" statements.
The September 1 missive takes issue with a letter sent to the chair of a House of Commons committee by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Newspapers Canada and the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association.
The three groups asked the committee to review the Access to Information Act after the RCMP announced in August that it was dropping its investigation into Togneri because a criminal investigation was "unwarranted."
The Togneri case set off a political firestorm when it was revealed by The Canadian Press that he had ordered the "unrelease" of a sensitive document that the Public Works Department was set to provide to the news agency after a request under the Access to Information Act.
Togneri at the time was a senior aide to then-Public Works minister Christian Paradis.
Canada's information commissioner launched a year-long investigation that concluded early this year that Togneri had interfered with the release of a record, even though he had no legal authority to do so.
Suzanne Legault recommended the RCMP investigate the matter, with reference to Section 67.1 of the Access to Information Act, which imposes fines and jail time to anyone who even counsels the withholding of documents.
Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose then called in the Mounties, who later dropped their preliminary probe.
The three watchdog groups asked Parliament to find out why the RCMP ended its investigation into Togneri, who once appeared before a Commons committee to acknowledge he had made a "mistake."
"The RCMP decision to abandon this investigation is extremely troubling," John Hinds, president of Newspapers Canada, said in a new release at the time.
"It appears to leave people most likely to interfere with ATI (Access to Information) requests above the law, and that just cannot stand."
But Togneri's lawyer played down the "mistake," saying in his September 1 letter that his client never interfered with the release of the document.
"Mr. Togneri simply hastily questioned why a lengthy document was being released when the information actually sought was contained in only one short section of it," wrote Paul K. Lepsoe of the Ottawa firm Lavery, de Billy.
"He never intended or instructed that information actually sought should not be released."
Scott Hennig of the taxpayers' group rejected Lepsoe's letter, which is a first step under Ontario's Libel and Slander Act.
"Their claim is total B.S. and they likely know it," he wrote on the organization's website.
"Mr. Togneri should have done his homework first. It wouldn't have taken much digging to realize the CTF isn't easily intimidated. We will not back off just because you pay a lawyer to send us a strongly-worded letter.
"In fact, sending us such a letter with such weak arguments, makes it clear to us you have no intention of actually filing suit and that you are just trying to intimidate us into silence. Either that or you are trying to bog us down and make us incur lawyer costs that you are guessing we cannot afford.
"Either way, you guessed wrong."
Under Ontario law, Togneri now has three months to file a defamation suit.
The RCMP's abandoned investigation is the second time the Mounties have declined to lay charges in a high-profile case involving Section 67.1. Last fall, officers decided no charges were warranted after a two-year investigation into the deliberate destruction of emails at the National Gallery of Canada.
Legault also found clear evidence in that case that public servants were counselled to destroy records.
No one has ever been charged under Section 67.1, which was added to the act in 1999 after scandals in which defence and health records had been destroyed to avoid embarrassing revelations.
The Commons access committee, which meets Thursday, is chaired by an opposition member, the NDP's Nathan Cullen, who has said he wants to examine the case.
Last month, Togneri welcomed the RCMP decision for "clearing me of any wrongdoing." He called Legault's investigation of him "grandstanding."
Togneri left government in 2010, and was removed from the federal election campaign of a Tory candidate in Edmonton in April when his role there became public.
Legault has launched other investigations of alleged political interference in access-to-information at Public Works, Foreign Affairs and National Defence, based on specific allegations brought to her attention. The reports are expected over the next year.
Her office is also conducting a self-initiated investigation into systematic interference in the access-to-information process at eight major departments: National Defence, Public Safety, CIDA, the Privy Council Office, Health Canada, Heritage Canada, Natural Resources Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency. That report is expected sometime next year.
posted by Clare L. Pieuk at 9:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home