'Tis a small world indeed!
Good Day Readers:
The heart of the allegations as yet unproven against Ms Glover can be found in the Statement of Claim paragraphs 84-90 inclusive pages 24-25. They have been reproduced verbatim on CyberSmokeBlog (OMG our Member of Parliament is an alleged defamer what should we do? - December 22, 2011).
Here's where it gets interesting. You may recall a couple weeks ago we covered a Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench Hearing presided over by Justice Shane I. Perlmutter in which a group of Canadian Wheat Board intervenors argued for an emergency, temporary Court Injunction to block further implementation of recently passed Bill C-!8 which will effectively dismantle the Board until a full judicial revie
w can be heard (January 16-17 next year). The request was denied.
However, one of the lawyers present was none other than a Mr. Author Hamilton of Toronto-based Cassals Brock & Blackwell representing The Western Canadian Wheat Producers (if our memory serves us correctly) a vocal Association (approximately 400 members) with the reputation of making a lot of noise in support of the Ritz/Harper approach to the marketing of grain. Well, guess what we meet again. Here he is but this time as a Defendant.
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
____________________________________________________
Arthur L. Hamilton
Arthur has over 13 years of experience practising in the area of corporate commercial and regulatory litigation and dispute resolution, with a focus on securities litigation, energy litigation, governance, and contract and business tort litigation. Arthur also assists a number of institutional clients with employment-related matters, including the enforcement of employment agreement terms and the detection and prosecution of employee misappropriation. His litigation practice increasingly involves disputes which extend beyond the jurisdictions of Ontario and Canada.
Arthur’s experience includes
- Representing clients in the Federal Court Trial Division, the Superior Courts of Ontario, New Brunswick, Alberta and Nova Scotia, as well as, the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada.
- Appearing before a number of administrative tribunals and regulatory bodies, including the Ontario Securities Commission, the National Energy Board, the Ontario Energy Board and the New Brunswick Public Utilities Board.
- Conducting private mediations and arbitrations.
- Providing counsel to various Members of Parliament, Senators and officials within the Prime Minister’s Office on an array of issues that have come before the courts, various regulatory bodies, Parliamentary committees, Senate committees and Commissions.
Through this experience, Arthur has developed the ability to provide complete file and client management once engaged in a litigation or dispute matter. In today’s litigation and dispute resolution, protecting the interests of clients goes beyond executing the technical requirements of the litigation or dispute resolution process put in place. Rather, the positioning and articulation of various litigation or other steps and reviewing other circumstances that would inevitably be impacted by events occurring in the litigation prove to be as important, if not more important, than the steps being taken in the litigation. In the current business and economic climate, there is no question that just about any issue with which a client is faced transcends the specific boundaries of a particular litigation or dispute resolution process. Valued counsel work for a client includes not only the ability to understand the full measure of the issues within the litigation or dispute resolution process, but also those issues which are important to the client that will impact upon or be impacted by the events and steps taken within the litigation or dispute resolution process.
In his litigation and dispute resolution practice, Arthur has regularly managed complex pieces of litigation involving multiple parties, multiple issues and in certain instances, multiple decision makers in various jurisdictions. In 2004 and 2005, Arthur was the lead counsel for the Conservative Party of Canada, which had intervener status at the Gomery Commission. This involved a review of more than one million documents, experts’ reports and argument of several procedural motions on items including the requested recusal of Commissioner Gomery, the breadth of parliamentary privilege and the obligations of Commission counsel in the preparation of the Final Report and Recommendations. Arthur managed the counsel team who were successful in persuading Commissioner Gomery of the linkages between the directing of sponsorship funds and a number of key fundraising representatives of the federal Liberal Party, a matter of significant concern for the public interest. Prior to and following the Gomery Commission, Arthur has managed a number of other complex litigation matters involving energy regulation, securities regulation and multi-party commercial disputes.
Arthur holds a Bachelor of Arts (with high distinction) from the University of Toronto, 1992, and a law degree from Osgoode Hall Law School, 1995. He was admitted to the Ontario Bar in 1997.
Education
LL.B., Osgoode Hall Law School, 1995 B.A., University of Toronto, 1992
Call to the bar
Ontario, 1997
Associations
The Advocates' Society
American Bar Association
Canadian Bar Association (Litigation Section)
Ontario Bar Association
Toronto Lawyers Association
Practice Areas
Charity & Not-For-Profit
Energy & UtilitiesLitigationSecurities Litigation
Representative Work
Cassels Brock
Representative Work
Cassels Brock Secures Key Victory in Conservative Fund Canada v. The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada
____________________________________________________________
Here's what the Guergis Statement of Claim has alleged regarding Arthur Hamilton/Cassels Brock & Blackwell (at Pages 10-14 Paragraphs 36-50):
Hamilton's Allegations
36. On or or abouit April 8 and/or 9, 2011, Hamilton spoke defamatory words about the Plaintiff, advising Novak, Giorno, Harper and/or others the Plaintiff was or had been in volved in fraud, extortion, obtaining benefits by false pretences, and prostitution, and that Snowdy had collected evidence to corrobrate his statements that the Plaintiff had been involved in fraud, extortion, obtaining benefits by false pretences and prostitution.
37. The Plaintiff complains of the defamatory words spoken by Hamilton to Novak, Giorno, Harper and/or others on or about April 8 and/or 9, 2010, and states that the words complained of were false and defamatory of the Plaintoff in their natural and ordinary meaning, including their implied meanings, and were spoken with malice.
38. The words complained of meant, were intended to mean, and were unstertood to mean that:
a. The Plaintiff was involved in fradulent activity;
b. The Plaintiff was involved in extortion;
c. The Plaintiff was involved in obtaining benefits by false pretences;
d. The Plaintiff was involved in prostitution;
e. Evidence existed and had been obtained by Snowdy to corrobrate the allegations that the Plaintiff was involved in fraud, extortion, obtaining benefits by false pretences and prostitution;
f. Snowdy had previously provided information respecting the improper and/or unlawful conduct to the RCMP and the OPP;
g. Snowdy had advised Hamilton that the Plaintiff was involved in fradulent activity;
h. Snowdy had advised Hamilton that the Plaintiff was involved in extortion;
i. Snowdy had advised Hamilton that the Plaintiff was involved in obtaining benefits by false pretences;
j. Snowdy had advised Hamilton that the Plaintiff in prostitution;
k. Snowdy had advised Hamilton that evidence existed and had been obtained by Snowdy to corroborate the allegations that the Plaintiff was involved in fraud, extortion, obtaining benefits by false pretences and prostitution.
l. Snowdy had advised Hamilton that Snowdy had previously provided information respecting the improper and/or unlawful conduct of the Plaintiffs to the RCMP and OPP.
39. Contrary to the foregoing false and defamatory words, implications, and innuendos:
a. The Plaintiff has never been involved in fraud, extortion, obtaining benefits by false pretences, or prostitution;
b. No evidence has ever existed to corroborate the allegations that the Plaintiff's conduct included involvement in fraud, extortion, obtaining benefits by false pretences and prostitution;
c. In the alternative to the statements made at paragraphs 31-35 herein, Snowdy never communicated to Hamilton any allegations that the Plaintiff was involved in fraud, extortion, obtaining benefits by false pretences, or prostitution;
d. In the alternative to the statements made at paragraphs 31-35 herein, Snowdy never told Hamilton that he had collected evidence to corroborate any allegations respecting the Plaintiff;
e. In the alternative to the statements made at paragraphs 31-35 herein, Snowdy never told Hamilton that he had provided information respecting the Plaintiff to the RCMP and the OPP, as of April 8 and/or 9, 2010.
40. On other occasions during 2010, the dates and times of which are not known to the Plaintiff, Hamilton spok further defamatory words about the Plaintiff, advising certain of the Defendants or other indivuduals that the Plaintiff had used cocaine and associated with prostitutes while using cocaine, and that a video recording exists depicting the Plaintiff using cocaine by snorting cocaine off the breast of a prostitute.
41. The Plaintiff complains of defamatory words spoken by Hamilton during 2010, and states that the words complained of were false and defamatory of the Plaintiff in their natural and ordinary meaning, including their implied meanings.
42. The words complained of meant, were intended to mean and were understood to mean that:
a. The Plaintiff has used cocaine;
b. The Plaintiff has used cocaine while associating with prostitutes;
c. A video recording exists depicting the Plaintiff using cocaine by snorting cocaine off the breast of a prostitute;
d. The Plaintiff has engaged in criminal conduct, being the possession and use of cocaine.
43. Contrary to the foregoing false and defamatory words, implications and innuendos:
a. The Plaintiff has never used cocaine;
b. The Plaintiff has never been in the presence of another individual or individuals using cocaine;
c. The Plaintiff has never been involved in criminal conduct;
d. No video recording has ever existed depicting the Plaintiff snorting cocaine off of the breast of a prostitute.
44. The defamatory words spoken by Hamilton about the Plaintiff during his meeting(s) with Novak, Giorno and Harper of April 8 and/or April 9, 2010 and on other occasions during 2010 were spoken in pursuance and in furtherance of the consipiacy engaged in by the Defendants.
Hamilton and Cassels Brock's Breaches Of Their Duties
On April 8 and 9, 2010 and all material times, Hamilton and Cassels Brock owed a fiduciary duty and duty of good faith to the Plaintiff, and were obliged to act with regard to the Plaintiff's interests and keep and protect the Plaintiff's confidences as a result of the relationship that existed between the Plaintiff, Hamilton and Cassels Brock, including as a result of the legal advice that had been provided by Hamilton and Cassels Brock to the Plaintiff on or about April 7, 2010 at a time when the Plaintiff was vulnerable and dependent upon Hamilton and Cassels Brock and relying upon their professional advice.
In this regard, on or about April 7, 2010, just one or two days prior to the words and defamatory words spoken by Hamilton to Novak, Giorno, Harper and/or others on or about April 8 and/or 9, 2010, Hamilton and Cassels Brock were providing legal advice to the Plaintiff, were receiving confidential information and documentation from the Plaintiff, were bgeing relied upon by the Plaintiff to protect her legal interests, and were aware that the Plaintiff's trust was being reposed to them.
However, on or about April 8 and/or April 9, 2010 and thereafter, Hamilton and Cassels Brock disregarded their relationship with the Plaintiff and acted in a manner detrimental to the Plaintiff's interests, including by speaking the foregoing false and defamatory words about the Plaintiff to Novak, Giorno, Harper and/or others on or about April 8 and/or April 9, 2010.
In addition, Hamilton and Cassels Brock failed to avoid a conflict of interest whereby the interests of their other client(s) were promoted at the expense of the Plaintiff's interests, resulting in breaches of their fiduciary duties and duties of good faith owed to the Plaintiff.
In speaking the foregoing false and defamatory words about the Plaintiff to Novak, Giorno, Harper and/or others on or about April 8 and/or April 9, 2010, and by communicating to Novak, Giorno, Harper and/or others private and confidential information that had been provided to Hamilton and Cassels Brock by the Plaiintiff, Hamilton and Cassels Brock breached the Plaintiff's confidences and/or were negligent with resulting damage to the Plaintiff.
Hamilton and Cassels Brock's breach of the Plaintiff's confidences was effected in pursuance and in furtherance of the conspiracy engaged in by the Defendants.
__________________________________________________
Glover is 'conspiracy,' Guergis suit says
MP's comments after ouster cited
By Bruce Owen
Wednesday December 28, 2011
Helena Guergis (left) and Shelly Glover
ST. Boniface MP Shelly Glover was part of a "conspiracy" to discredit former Conservative cabinet minister Helena Guergis and remove her from Prime Minister Stephen Harper's caucus, court documents filed in Ontario say.
Glover is one of eight people named in a $1.3-million defamation lawsuit Guergis filed last week against Harper, Labour Minister Lisa Raitt, the Conservative Party of Canada and others.
Harper fired Guergis from cabinet in April 2010, saying he had information involving allegations of criminal conduct. He referred the matter to the RCMP and did not provide details of the allegations to Guergis, says the 31-page statement of claim.
Glover is singled out for comments she allegedly made -- none of the allegations in Guergis's claim has been proven in court -- in a May 16, 2010 television broadcast in which she commented on Guergis's departure.
In the broadcast, picked up by other media, Glover said, "I can assure you that there is far more to come," and, "This isn't finished."
Guergis said in her claim in Ontario Superior Court evidence was made public about her being involved in criminal conduct. The RCMP also cleared Guergis and no charges were laid against her.
She said in the claim Glover's words were calculated to make her suffer harm and have damaged her reputation, political career, health and well-being.
"The defamatory words spoken by Glover respecting the plaintiff's alleged involvement in criminal conduct were spoken in pursuance and in furtherance of the conspiracy engaged in by the defendants," the claim says.
Glover's spokeswoman Myrrhanda Novak said because the matter is before the courts, Glover won't comment.
The Prime Minister's Office has called the allegations groundless.
Glover made her comments on CTV's Question Period in which she defended Harper's decision to ask for Guergis's resignation as minister for the status of women and expel her from the Conservative caucus as MP for Simcoe Grey.
"Frankly, (the PM) did the right thing," Glover also said.
She is also suing Ray Novak, Harper's principal secretary, Arthur Hamilton and the law firm he works for, Cassels Brock & Blackwell, Guy Giorno, Harper's former chief of staff, Axelle Pellerin, a former aide to Guergis, and Derrick Snowdy. Snowdy is the Toronto private investigator whose allegations helped spark the controversy around Guergis and her husband.
Jaffer came under scrutiny for his activities as a lobbyist after he lost his Edmonton seat in 2008. He also made headlines when an associate had bragged to friends Jaffer could open doors in Ottawa to potential clients.
Filings to a Commons Committee revealed Jaffer use one of his wife's parliamentary email addresses, a room in her office, and had even handed out an MP's business card to prospective clients.
With files from The Canadian Press
bruce.owen@freepress.mb.ca
The heart of the allegations as yet unproven against Ms Glover can be found in the Statement of Claim paragraphs 84-90 inclusive pages 24-25. They have been reproduced verbatim on CyberSmokeBlog (OMG our Member of Parliament is an alleged defamer what should we do? - December 22, 2011).
Here's where it gets interesting. You may recall a couple weeks ago we covered a Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench Hearing presided over by Justice Shane I. Perlmutter in which a group of Canadian Wheat Board intervenors argued for an emergency, temporary Court Injunction to block further implementation of recently passed Bill C-!8 which will effectively dismantle the Board until a full judicial revie
w can be heard (January 16-17 next year). The request was denied.
However, one of the lawyers present was none other than a Mr. Author Hamilton of Toronto-based Cassals Brock & Blackwell representing The Western Canadian Wheat Producers (if our memory serves us correctly) a vocal Association (approximately 400 members) with the reputation of making a lot of noise in support of the Ritz/Harper approach to the marketing of grain. Well, guess what we meet again. Here he is but this time as a Defendant.
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
____________________________________________________
Arthur L. Hamilton
Arthur has over 13 years of experience practising in the area of corporate commercial and regulatory litigation and dispute resolution, with a focus on securities litigation, energy litigation, governance, and contract and business tort litigation. Arthur also assists a number of institutional clients with employment-related matters, including the enforcement of employment agreement terms and the detection and prosecution of employee misappropriation. His litigation practice increasingly involves disputes which extend beyond the jurisdictions of Ontario and Canada.
Arthur’s experience includes
- Representing clients in the Federal Court Trial Division, the Superior Courts of Ontario, New Brunswick, Alberta and Nova Scotia, as well as, the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada.
- Appearing before a number of administrative tribunals and regulatory bodies, including the Ontario Securities Commission, the National Energy Board, the Ontario Energy Board and the New Brunswick Public Utilities Board.
- Conducting private mediations and arbitrations.
- Providing counsel to various Members of Parliament, Senators and officials within the Prime Minister’s Office on an array of issues that have come before the courts, various regulatory bodies, Parliamentary committees, Senate committees and Commissions.
Through this experience, Arthur has developed the ability to provide complete file and client management once engaged in a litigation or dispute matter. In today’s litigation and dispute resolution, protecting the interests of clients goes beyond executing the technical requirements of the litigation or dispute resolution process put in place. Rather, the positioning and articulation of various litigation or other steps and reviewing other circumstances that would inevitably be impacted by events occurring in the litigation prove to be as important, if not more important, than the steps being taken in the litigation. In the current business and economic climate, there is no question that just about any issue with which a client is faced transcends the specific boundaries of a particular litigation or dispute resolution process. Valued counsel work for a client includes not only the ability to understand the full measure of the issues within the litigation or dispute resolution process, but also those issues which are important to the client that will impact upon or be impacted by the events and steps taken within the litigation or dispute resolution process.
In his litigation and dispute resolution practice, Arthur has regularly managed complex pieces of litigation involving multiple parties, multiple issues and in certain instances, multiple decision makers in various jurisdictions. In 2004 and 2005, Arthur was the lead counsel for the Conservative Party of Canada, which had intervener status at the Gomery Commission. This involved a review of more than one million documents, experts’ reports and argument of several procedural motions on items including the requested recusal of Commissioner Gomery, the breadth of parliamentary privilege and the obligations of Commission counsel in the preparation of the Final Report and Recommendations. Arthur managed the counsel team who were successful in persuading Commissioner Gomery of the linkages between the directing of sponsorship funds and a number of key fundraising representatives of the federal Liberal Party, a matter of significant concern for the public interest. Prior to and following the Gomery Commission, Arthur has managed a number of other complex litigation matters involving energy regulation, securities regulation and multi-party commercial disputes.
Arthur holds a Bachelor of Arts (with high distinction) from the University of Toronto, 1992, and a law degree from Osgoode Hall Law School, 1995. He was admitted to the Ontario Bar in 1997.
Education
LL.B., Osgoode Hall Law School, 1995 B.A., University of Toronto, 1992
Call to the bar
Ontario, 1997
Associations
The Advocates' Society
American Bar Association
Canadian Bar Association (Litigation Section)
Ontario Bar Association
Toronto Lawyers Association
Practice Areas
Charity & Not-For-Profit
Energy & UtilitiesLitigationSecurities Litigation
Representative Work
Cassels Brock
Representative Work
Cassels Brock Secures Key Victory in Conservative Fund Canada v. The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada
____________________________________________________________
Here's what the Guergis Statement of Claim has alleged regarding Arthur Hamilton/Cassels Brock & Blackwell (at Pages 10-14 Paragraphs 36-50):
Hamilton's Allegations
36. On or or abouit April 8 and/or 9, 2011, Hamilton spoke defamatory words about the Plaintiff, advising Novak, Giorno, Harper and/or others the Plaintiff was or had been in volved in fraud, extortion, obtaining benefits by false pretences, and prostitution, and that Snowdy had collected evidence to corrobrate his statements that the Plaintiff had been involved in fraud, extortion, obtaining benefits by false pretences and prostitution.
37. The Plaintiff complains of the defamatory words spoken by Hamilton to Novak, Giorno, Harper and/or others on or about April 8 and/or 9, 2010, and states that the words complained of were false and defamatory of the Plaintoff in their natural and ordinary meaning, including their implied meanings, and were spoken with malice.
38. The words complained of meant, were intended to mean, and were unstertood to mean that:
a. The Plaintiff was involved in fradulent activity;
b. The Plaintiff was involved in extortion;
c. The Plaintiff was involved in obtaining benefits by false pretences;
d. The Plaintiff was involved in prostitution;
e. Evidence existed and had been obtained by Snowdy to corrobrate the allegations that the Plaintiff was involved in fraud, extortion, obtaining benefits by false pretences and prostitution;
f. Snowdy had previously provided information respecting the improper and/or unlawful conduct to the RCMP and the OPP;
g. Snowdy had advised Hamilton that the Plaintiff was involved in fradulent activity;
h. Snowdy had advised Hamilton that the Plaintiff was involved in extortion;
i. Snowdy had advised Hamilton that the Plaintiff was involved in obtaining benefits by false pretences;
j. Snowdy had advised Hamilton that the Plaintiff in prostitution;
k. Snowdy had advised Hamilton that evidence existed and had been obtained by Snowdy to corroborate the allegations that the Plaintiff was involved in fraud, extortion, obtaining benefits by false pretences and prostitution.
l. Snowdy had advised Hamilton that Snowdy had previously provided information respecting the improper and/or unlawful conduct of the Plaintiffs to the RCMP and OPP.
39. Contrary to the foregoing false and defamatory words, implications, and innuendos:
a. The Plaintiff has never been involved in fraud, extortion, obtaining benefits by false pretences, or prostitution;
b. No evidence has ever existed to corroborate the allegations that the Plaintiff's conduct included involvement in fraud, extortion, obtaining benefits by false pretences and prostitution;
c. In the alternative to the statements made at paragraphs 31-35 herein, Snowdy never communicated to Hamilton any allegations that the Plaintiff was involved in fraud, extortion, obtaining benefits by false pretences, or prostitution;
d. In the alternative to the statements made at paragraphs 31-35 herein, Snowdy never told Hamilton that he had collected evidence to corroborate any allegations respecting the Plaintiff;
e. In the alternative to the statements made at paragraphs 31-35 herein, Snowdy never told Hamilton that he had provided information respecting the Plaintiff to the RCMP and the OPP, as of April 8 and/or 9, 2010.
40. On other occasions during 2010, the dates and times of which are not known to the Plaintiff, Hamilton spok further defamatory words about the Plaintiff, advising certain of the Defendants or other indivuduals that the Plaintiff had used cocaine and associated with prostitutes while using cocaine, and that a video recording exists depicting the Plaintiff using cocaine by snorting cocaine off the breast of a prostitute.
41. The Plaintiff complains of defamatory words spoken by Hamilton during 2010, and states that the words complained of were false and defamatory of the Plaintiff in their natural and ordinary meaning, including their implied meanings.
42. The words complained of meant, were intended to mean and were understood to mean that:
a. The Plaintiff has used cocaine;
b. The Plaintiff has used cocaine while associating with prostitutes;
c. A video recording exists depicting the Plaintiff using cocaine by snorting cocaine off the breast of a prostitute;
d. The Plaintiff has engaged in criminal conduct, being the possession and use of cocaine.
43. Contrary to the foregoing false and defamatory words, implications and innuendos:
a. The Plaintiff has never used cocaine;
b. The Plaintiff has never been in the presence of another individual or individuals using cocaine;
c. The Plaintiff has never been involved in criminal conduct;
d. No video recording has ever existed depicting the Plaintiff snorting cocaine off of the breast of a prostitute.
44. The defamatory words spoken by Hamilton about the Plaintiff during his meeting(s) with Novak, Giorno and Harper of April 8 and/or April 9, 2010 and on other occasions during 2010 were spoken in pursuance and in furtherance of the consipiacy engaged in by the Defendants.
Hamilton and Cassels Brock's Breaches Of Their Duties
On April 8 and 9, 2010 and all material times, Hamilton and Cassels Brock owed a fiduciary duty and duty of good faith to the Plaintiff, and were obliged to act with regard to the Plaintiff's interests and keep and protect the Plaintiff's confidences as a result of the relationship that existed between the Plaintiff, Hamilton and Cassels Brock, including as a result of the legal advice that had been provided by Hamilton and Cassels Brock to the Plaintiff on or about April 7, 2010 at a time when the Plaintiff was vulnerable and dependent upon Hamilton and Cassels Brock and relying upon their professional advice.
In this regard, on or about April 7, 2010, just one or two days prior to the words and defamatory words spoken by Hamilton to Novak, Giorno, Harper and/or others on or about April 8 and/or 9, 2010, Hamilton and Cassels Brock were providing legal advice to the Plaintiff, were receiving confidential information and documentation from the Plaintiff, were bgeing relied upon by the Plaintiff to protect her legal interests, and were aware that the Plaintiff's trust was being reposed to them.
However, on or about April 8 and/or April 9, 2010 and thereafter, Hamilton and Cassels Brock disregarded their relationship with the Plaintiff and acted in a manner detrimental to the Plaintiff's interests, including by speaking the foregoing false and defamatory words about the Plaintiff to Novak, Giorno, Harper and/or others on or about April 8 and/or April 9, 2010.
In addition, Hamilton and Cassels Brock failed to avoid a conflict of interest whereby the interests of their other client(s) were promoted at the expense of the Plaintiff's interests, resulting in breaches of their fiduciary duties and duties of good faith owed to the Plaintiff.
In speaking the foregoing false and defamatory words about the Plaintiff to Novak, Giorno, Harper and/or others on or about April 8 and/or April 9, 2010, and by communicating to Novak, Giorno, Harper and/or others private and confidential information that had been provided to Hamilton and Cassels Brock by the Plaiintiff, Hamilton and Cassels Brock breached the Plaintiff's confidences and/or were negligent with resulting damage to the Plaintiff.
Hamilton and Cassels Brock's breach of the Plaintiff's confidences was effected in pursuance and in furtherance of the conspiracy engaged in by the Defendants.
__________________________________________________
Glover is 'conspiracy,' Guergis suit says
MP's comments after ouster cited
By Bruce Owen
Wednesday December 28, 2011
Helena Guergis (left) and Shelly Glover
ST. Boniface MP Shelly Glover was part of a "conspiracy" to discredit former Conservative cabinet minister Helena Guergis and remove her from Prime Minister Stephen Harper's caucus, court documents filed in Ontario say.
Glover is one of eight people named in a $1.3-million defamation lawsuit Guergis filed last week against Harper, Labour Minister Lisa Raitt, the Conservative Party of Canada and others.
Harper fired Guergis from cabinet in April 2010, saying he had information involving allegations of criminal conduct. He referred the matter to the RCMP and did not provide details of the allegations to Guergis, says the 31-page statement of claim.
Glover is singled out for comments she allegedly made -- none of the allegations in Guergis's claim has been proven in court -- in a May 16, 2010 television broadcast in which she commented on Guergis's departure.
In the broadcast, picked up by other media, Glover said, "I can assure you that there is far more to come," and, "This isn't finished."
Guergis said in her claim in Ontario Superior Court evidence was made public about her being involved in criminal conduct. The RCMP also cleared Guergis and no charges were laid against her.
She said in the claim Glover's words were calculated to make her suffer harm and have damaged her reputation, political career, health and well-being.
"The defamatory words spoken by Glover respecting the plaintiff's alleged involvement in criminal conduct were spoken in pursuance and in furtherance of the conspiracy engaged in by the defendants," the claim says.
Glover's spokeswoman Myrrhanda Novak said because the matter is before the courts, Glover won't comment.
The Prime Minister's Office has called the allegations groundless.
Glover made her comments on CTV's Question Period in which she defended Harper's decision to ask for Guergis's resignation as minister for the status of women and expel her from the Conservative caucus as MP for Simcoe Grey.
"Frankly, (the PM) did the right thing," Glover also said.
She is also suing Ray Novak, Harper's principal secretary, Arthur Hamilton and the law firm he works for, Cassels Brock & Blackwell, Guy Giorno, Harper's former chief of staff, Axelle Pellerin, a former aide to Guergis, and Derrick Snowdy. Snowdy is the Toronto private investigator whose allegations helped spark the controversy around Guergis and her husband.
Jaffer came under scrutiny for his activities as a lobbyist after he lost his Edmonton seat in 2008. He also made headlines when an associate had bragged to friends Jaffer could open doors in Ottawa to potential clients.
Filings to a Commons Committee revealed Jaffer use one of his wife's parliamentary email addresses, a room in her office, and had even handed out an MP's business card to prospective clients.
With files from The Canadian Press
bruce.owen@freepress.mb.ca
posted by Clare L. Pieuk at 6:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home