Sean Bruyea

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Go down

Sean Bruyea - Page 4 Empty Re: Sean Bruyea

Post by Trooper on Wed 13 Mar 2019, 6:56 pm

A public inquiry would be nice to see but we've been calling for this for sometime with no success. The government has full control over the Veterans file, and Veterans are at the mercy of the government. It is impossible to hold the government to account with regards to the Veterans file. I'm afraid things will continue to be folded against Veterans moving forward. No government has even given a small signal recognizing the failure they have brought upon the Veterans file. No government will move in the right direction in overriding the bureaucrats. It is a done deal that the government truly does not care about the Veterans file, and the appointed Ministers do have the smarts to truly understand the real issues within the VAC system. Incompetence is a word that sums up the governments work on the Veterans file, past, present, and future.
Trooper
Trooper

Administrator

Posts : 1174
Join date : 2017-10-07

http://cvdbsf.forumotion.com/

Back to top Go down

Sean Bruyea - Page 4 Empty Re: Sean Bruyea

Post by Oliver on Tue 02 Apr 2019, 8:22 am

Veterans aren’t fooled by Liberal alchemy

By SEAN BRUYEA APR. 1, 2019

The only magic the Liberals will see is how they allowed bureaucrats to pass the wand over an election promise that made not just veterans’ benefits disappear but veterans’ votes for Liberals in the next election.

Sean Bruyea - Page 4 6L8A0702.t5c797315.m800@0.x71f93a30-750x375
Canada’s new Veterans Affairs Minister Lawrence MacAulay, pictured on March 1, 2019, at Rideau Hall in Ottawa shortly after being sworn in and shuffled from agriculture. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade and file photo
OTTAWA—It was a flagship promise to veterans made personally by Justin Trudeau in 2015 and a priority in the mandate letters for four different Veterans Affairs ministers. But it took until April 1, 2019, to conjure. It is the Liberal commitment to “reinstate lifelong pensions.” Did the Liberals fulfill their promise to Canada’s perennially scorned veterans?



The previous Liberal government in 2005, with much bureaucratic deception, stick-handled the replacement of lifelong pensions with one-time lump sums. Permitted not one second of debate in the House or a House committee hearing, in less than one minute MPs unanimously overturned a nearly 200-year commitment to provide lifelong pensions for disabled veterans with extra amounts for family members.

The regulations that fleshed out the details of this lump-sum law would be posted over the Christmas holiday season during an election. In spite of at least one lengthy submission (from me) to amend the regulations, the bureaucrats changed just one word. And the details were stunning. The lump sum “disability award” would in many cases pay out less than 10 per cent of the amount veterans and their families would have otherwise collected under the
lifelong pension.

Sadly, this pattern of spurning democratic due process for benefits and laws profoundly affecting veterans and their families would be the playbook more often than not over the subsequent 14 years.

The lump sum would also be the flash point to catalyze not just widespread veteran disaffection but also dramatically raise veterans’ issues in the Canadian conscience. For the first time in a nearly a century, commitments to veterans would feature in the platforms of most parties in the 2015 federal election. Consequently, Liberals would woo large numbers of veterans who traditionally tended to vote conservative with Justin Trudeau’s personal promise that, among other things, “We will reinstate lifelong pensions.”

Google Dictionary’s definition of reinstate captures the key elements of most other definitions: “restore (someone or something) to their former position or condition.” There was only one veteran lifelong pension in existence to restore, known both in law and colloquially, as the “disability pension.”

Although called a “pension,” the disability pension is a payment separate from any lost income. It is a very real and tangible recognition of all the other losses and suffering veterans have endured in sacrificing their well-being and health at the orders of and on behalf of Canada. That suffering by definition is lifelong. Hence Canada’s solemn historical choice to recognize lifelong loss with a lifelong pension.

That is also why a Veterans Affairs advisory group on policy emphasized that the Liberal promise must not merely convert the much-reviled lump sum into an annuity.


However, under the stewardship of someone whom veterans hoped would champion their plight, former top general Walter Natynczyk, oversaw the sleight-of-hand transformation of the Liberal promise. Paying up to $1,150 monthly with nothing extra for family members, this “amount was determined by converting the value of the maximum lump sum disability award of $360,000 into an age-adjusted monthly payment.”

Some further hocus pocus and the bureaucratic magic show would claim it was eradicating complexity by combining six other programs into one, conveniently dropping an important allowance for the most disabled veterans paying, coincidentally, just under $1,150 per month.

The bureaucrats and politicians then audaciously marketed the collection of programs as “pension for life.” All of this was then cloaked in the same budget omnibus bill incidentally hiding another law central to the SNC-Lavalin scandal. Meanwhile, Justin Trudeau invoked cabinet confidence to prevent public input on the regulations, while Treasury Board allowed bureaucrats to hide the costing details of this claimed $3.6-billion new veterans’ program from public view.

But veterans won’t be so easily deceived. Those who thankfully had the chutzpah to publicly complain about their inadequate lump sums will likewise not be bought off by an “additional monthly amount” that will pay an average of just $120 monthly to less than 60 per cent of lump sum recipients. The remaining 40 per cent of 76,000 veterans will receive nothing.

The reality is that any veteran applying for disability benefits under this new plan will on average receive less than those who will continue to be covered under previous programs. The only magic the Liberals will see is how they allowed bureaucrats to pass the wand over an election promise that made not just veterans’ benefits disappear but veterans’ votes for Liberals in the next election.


Sean Bruyea, vice-president of Anti-Corruption and Accountability Canada and author, has a graduate degree in public ethics, is a retired Air Force intelligence officer, and frequent commentator on government, military, and veterans’ issues. Mr. Bruyea filed a $25,000 defamation lawsuit against now former veterans affairs minister Seamus O’Regan on May 11, 2018, claiming the minister had defamed in a column published in The Hill Times on Feb. 26 2018, which was a rebuttal to Mr. Bruyea’s Feb. 12 column also in The Hill Times. But an Ontario judge dismissed the case, saying the need to protect the freedom of expression is more important than any harm alleged to have been suffered by the outspoken veterans’ advocate, who represented himself in Ontario Superior Court. Mr. Bruyea is appealing the ruling on June 13, 2019, in the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The Hill Times





Oliver
Oliver
VAC Benefits

Posts : 59
Join date : 2018-02-28

Back to top Go down

Sean Bruyea - Page 4 Empty Re: Sean Bruyea

Post by Alpha on Tue 02 Apr 2019, 2:14 pm

Oliver wrote:
Veterans aren’t fooled by Liberal alchemy

By SEAN BRUYEA      APR. 1, 2019

The only magic the Liberals will see is how they allowed bureaucrats to pass the wand over an election promise that made not just veterans’ benefits disappear but veterans’ votes for Liberals in the next election.

Sean Bruyea - Page 4 6L8A0702.t5c797315.m800@0.x71f93a30-750x375
Canada’s new Veterans Affairs Minister Lawrence MacAulay, pictured on March 1, 2019, at Rideau Hall in Ottawa shortly after being sworn in and shuffled from agriculture. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade and file photo
OTTAWA—It was a flagship promise to veterans made personally by Justin Trudeau in 2015 and a priority in the mandate letters for four different Veterans Affairs ministers. But it took until April 1, 2019, to conjure. It is the Liberal commitment to “reinstate lifelong pensions.” Did the Liberals fulfill their promise to Canada’s perennially scorned veterans?



The previous Liberal government in 2005, with much bureaucratic deception, stick-handled the replacement of lifelong pensions with one-time lump sums. Permitted not one second of debate in the House or a House committee hearing, in less than one minute MPs unanimously overturned a nearly 200-year commitment to provide lifelong pensions for disabled veterans with extra amounts for family members.

The regulations that fleshed out the details of this lump-sum law would be posted over the Christmas holiday season during an election. In spite of at least one lengthy submission (from me) to amend the regulations, the bureaucrats changed just one word. And the details were stunning. The lump sum “disability award” would in many cases pay out less than 10 per cent of the amount veterans and their families would have otherwise collected under the
lifelong pension.

Sadly, this pattern of spurning democratic due process for benefits and laws profoundly affecting veterans and their families would be the playbook more often than not over the subsequent 14 years.

The lump sum would also be the flash point to catalyze not just widespread veteran disaffection but also dramatically raise veterans’ issues in the Canadian conscience.  For the first time in a nearly a century, commitments to veterans would feature in the platforms of most parties in the 2015 federal election. Consequently, Liberals would woo large numbers of veterans who traditionally tended to vote conservative with Justin Trudeau’s personal promise that, among other things, “We will reinstate lifelong pensions.”

Google Dictionary’s definition of reinstate captures the key elements of most other definitions: “restore (someone or something) to their former position or condition.” There was only one veteran lifelong pension in existence to restore, known both in law and colloquially, as the “disability pension.”

Although called a “pension,” the disability pension is a payment separate from any lost income. It is a very real and tangible recognition of all the other losses and suffering veterans have endured in sacrificing their well-being and health at the orders of and on behalf of Canada. That suffering by definition is lifelong. Hence Canada’s solemn historical choice to recognize lifelong loss with a lifelong pension.

That is also why a Veterans Affairs advisory group on policy emphasized that the Liberal promise must not merely convert the much-reviled lump sum into an annuity.


However, under the stewardship of someone whom veterans hoped would champion their plight, former top general Walter Natynczyk, oversaw the sleight-of-hand transformation of the Liberal promise. Paying up to $1,150 monthly with nothing extra for family members, this “amount was determined by converting the value of the maximum lump sum disability award of $360,000 into an age-adjusted monthly payment.”

Some further hocus pocus and the bureaucratic magic show would claim it was eradicating complexity by combining six other programs into one, conveniently dropping an important allowance for the most disabled veterans paying, coincidentally, just under $1,150 per month.

The bureaucrats and politicians then audaciously marketed the collection of programs as “pension for life.” All of this was then cloaked in the same budget omnibus bill incidentally hiding another law central to the SNC-Lavalin scandal. Meanwhile, Justin Trudeau invoked cabinet confidence to prevent public input on the regulations, while Treasury Board allowed bureaucrats to hide the costing details of this claimed $3.6-billion new veterans’ program from public view.

But veterans won’t be so easily deceived. Those who thankfully had the chutzpah to publicly complain about their inadequate lump sums will likewise not be bought off by an “additional monthly amount” that will pay an average of just $120 monthly to less than 60 per cent of lump sum recipients. The remaining 40 per cent of 76,000 veterans will receive nothing.

The reality is that any veteran applying for disability benefits under this new plan will on average receive less than those who will continue to be covered under previous programs. The only magic the Liberals will see is how they allowed bureaucrats to pass the wand over an election promise that made not just veterans’ benefits disappear but veterans’ votes for Liberals in the next election.


Sean Bruyea, vice-president of Anti-Corruption and Accountability Canada and author, has a graduate degree in public ethics, is a retired Air Force intelligence officer, and frequent commentator on government, military, and veterans’ issues. Mr. Bruyea filed a $25,000 defamation lawsuit against now former veterans affairs minister Seamus O’Regan on May 11, 2018, claiming the minister had defamed in a column published in The Hill Times on Feb. 26 2018, which was a rebuttal to Mr. Bruyea’s Feb. 12 column also in The Hill Times. But an Ontario judge dismissed the case, saying the need to protect the freedom of expression is more important than any harm alleged to have been suffered by the outspoken veterans’ advocate, who represented himself in Ontario Superior Court. Mr. Bruyea is appealing the ruling on June 13, 2019, in the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The Hill Times  







Exactly right, the Liberals promised to “reinstate lifelong pensions.” not a lifelong pension.


Alpha
Alpha
Forum Advocate

Posts : 105
Join date : 2018-02-07

Back to top Go down

Sean Bruyea - Page 4 Empty Re: Sean Bruyea

Post by Trooper on Tue 02 Apr 2019, 6:44 pm

Oliver wrote:
Veterans aren’t fooled by Liberal alchemy

By SEAN BRUYEA      APR. 1, 2019

The only magic the Liberals will see is how they allowed bureaucrats to pass the wand over an election promise that made not just veterans’ benefits disappear but veterans’ votes for Liberals in the next election.

Sean Bruyea - Page 4 6L8A0702.t5c797315.m800@0.x71f93a30-750x375
Canada’s new Veterans Affairs Minister Lawrence MacAulay, pictured on March 1, 2019, at Rideau Hall in Ottawa shortly after being sworn in and shuffled from agriculture. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade and file photo
OTTAWA—It was a flagship promise to veterans made personally by Justin Trudeau in 2015 and a priority in the mandate letters for four different Veterans Affairs ministers. But it took until April 1, 2019, to conjure. It is the Liberal commitment to “reinstate lifelong pensions.” Did the Liberals fulfill their promise to Canada’s perennially scorned veterans?



The previous Liberal government in 2005, with much bureaucratic deception, stick-handled the replacement of lifelong pensions with one-time lump sums. Permitted not one second of debate in the House or a House committee hearing, in less than one minute MPs unanimously overturned a nearly 200-year commitment to provide lifelong pensions for disabled veterans with extra amounts for family members.

The regulations that fleshed out the details of this lump-sum law would be posted over the Christmas holiday season during an election. In spite of at least one lengthy submission (from me) to amend the regulations, the bureaucrats changed just one word. And the details were stunning. The lump sum “disability award” would in many cases pay out less than 10 per cent of the amount veterans and their families would have otherwise collected under the
lifelong pension.

Sadly, this pattern of spurning democratic due process for benefits and laws profoundly affecting veterans and their families would be the playbook more often than not over the subsequent 14 years.

The lump sum would also be the flash point to catalyze not just widespread veteran disaffection but also dramatically raise veterans’ issues in the Canadian conscience.  For the first time in a nearly a century, commitments to veterans would feature in the platforms of most parties in the 2015 federal election. Consequently, Liberals would woo large numbers of veterans who traditionally tended to vote conservative with Justin Trudeau’s personal promise that, among other things, “We will reinstate lifelong pensions.”

Google Dictionary’s definition of reinstate captures the key elements of most other definitions: “restore (someone or something) to their former position or condition.” There was only one veteran lifelong pension in existence to restore, known both in law and colloquially, as the “disability pension.”

Although called a “pension,” the disability pension is a payment separate from any lost income. It is a very real and tangible recognition of all the other losses and suffering veterans have endured in sacrificing their well-being and health at the orders of and on behalf of Canada. That suffering by definition is lifelong. Hence Canada’s solemn historical choice to recognize lifelong loss with a lifelong pension.

That is also why a Veterans Affairs advisory group on policy emphasized that the Liberal promise must not merely convert the much-reviled lump sum into an annuity.


However, under the stewardship of someone whom veterans hoped would champion their plight, former top general Walter Natynczyk, oversaw the sleight-of-hand transformation of the Liberal promise. Paying up to $1,150 monthly with nothing extra for family members, this “amount was determined by converting the value of the maximum lump sum disability award of $360,000 into an age-adjusted monthly payment.”

Some further hocus pocus and the bureaucratic magic show would claim it was eradicating complexity by combining six other programs into one, conveniently dropping an important allowance for the most disabled veterans paying, coincidentally, just under $1,150 per month.

The bureaucrats and politicians then audaciously marketed the collection of programs as “pension for life.” All of this was then cloaked in the same budget omnibus bill incidentally hiding another law central to the SNC-Lavalin scandal. Meanwhile, Justin Trudeau invoked cabinet confidence to prevent public input on the regulations, while Treasury Board allowed bureaucrats to hide the costing details of this claimed $3.6-billion new veterans’ program from public view.

But veterans won’t be so easily deceived. Those who thankfully had the chutzpah to publicly complain about their inadequate lump sums will likewise not be bought off by an “additional monthly amount” that will pay an average of just $120 monthly to less than 60 per cent of lump sum recipients. The remaining 40 per cent of 76,000 veterans will receive nothing.

The reality is that any veteran applying for disability benefits under this new plan will on average receive less than those who will continue to be covered under previous programs. The only magic the Liberals will see is how they allowed bureaucrats to pass the wand over an election promise that made not just veterans’ benefits disappear but veterans’ votes for Liberals in the next election.


Sean Bruyea, vice-president of Anti-Corruption and Accountability Canada and author, has a graduate degree in public ethics, is a retired Air Force intelligence officer, and frequent commentator on government, military, and veterans’ issues. Mr. Bruyea filed a $25,000 defamation lawsuit against now former veterans affairs minister Seamus O’Regan on May 11, 2018, claiming the minister had defamed in a column published in The Hill Times on Feb. 26 2018, which was a rebuttal to Mr. Bruyea’s Feb. 12 column also in The Hill Times. But an Ontario judge dismissed the case, saying the need to protect the freedom of expression is more important than any harm alleged to have been suffered by the outspoken veterans’ advocate, who represented himself in Ontario Superior Court. Mr. Bruyea is appealing the ruling on June 13, 2019, in the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The Hill Times  







Once again our top advocate Sean Bruyea has come through shinning the light on how VAC & the bureaucrats failed the Veterans file.

Those that read my comments know that I point the finger directly at Walter Natynczyk the deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs for the failure to reinstate lifelong pensions of the pension act as it was perceived to be by Veterans. You all know that the first photo of any new Minister of Veterans Affairs shows Walter Natynczyk in it. This is clear, and proof of this is in this forum under the category (Minister of Veterans Affairs). This guy Walter Natynczyk was in the position to create/return the lifelong pension of the pension act. A pension that Veterans were all waiting for. Let's be realistic here, the Ministers of Veterans Affairs don't have the knowledge or understanding to fulfill this action. That is why they count on Walter Natynczyk to do what Walter Natynczyk does, create legislation for the Ministers to sign off on. Being a former Soldier I tend to try and show respect for still serving, and former members of the forces. With Walter Natynczyk I have no respect for this guy, and I'm ashamed that he was a former member of a force that I was a part of. It's one thing for a Minister or the Prime Minister to stand in front of the Country miss leading the Country on Veteran issues, they don't hold the knowledge, but it's shameful that Walter Natynczyk can look Veterans in the eyes at town halls or committee meetings and throw the bull at us. In other words what I'm trying to say is that if Walter Natynczyk would have returned the pension portion of the pension act, the Liberals would have sign off on it. The other point I'II make is Walter Natynczyk has, and had the power to discard our now insurance style system, back to a sacrifice system. Walter Natynczyk also could have made or requested change of leaving the disabled Veterans under Veterans Affairs, and the non-injured Veterans under DND. He knows all of this but wants nothing to do with it because he cares about himself only. Make no mistake, Walter Natynczyk has done nothing for disabled Veterans in this Country. On the contrary, Walter Natynczyk knowingly, and purposely screwed over, and betrayed disabled Veterans in this Country. He holds the full responsibility for the mess we are in today.  
Trooper
Trooper

Administrator

Posts : 1174
Join date : 2017-10-07

http://cvdbsf.forumotion.com/

Back to top Go down

Sean Bruyea - Page 4 Empty Re: Sean Bruyea

Post by Terminator on Fri 12 Jul 2019, 5:00 pm

Sean Bruyea - Page 4 Logo-header-np

Veterans activist gets OK to press $25K libel suit against Liberal minister

The Canadian Press
Colin Perkel
July 12, 2019

TORONTO — A noted veterans activist can proceed with his defamation suit against the former minister of veterans affairs after Ontario’s top court ruled Friday that a deputy judge in small claims court had no authority to throw out the claim without a hearing on its merits.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal ordered the $25,000 libel suit Sean Bruyea brought against Seamus O’Regan back to small claims court for trial.

“If the government is so confident that they did not personally attack and defame me, then please let the case go to trial,” Bruyea said after the ruling.

Bruyea, of Ottawa, sued O’Regan for an article in the Hill Times on Feb. 26, 2018. In the column, the then-veterans affairs minister took aim at Bruyea for criticizing a Liberal government decision to give veterans with service-related injuries the choice of a lump-sum payment or life-time pension.

Among other things, O’Regan accused Bruyea of lying about the program to suit his personal agenda.

The disabled veteran sued O’Regan, currently Indigenous services minister, and the attorney general for damages in small claims court, a division of the Superior Court of Justice.

In August last year, Deputy Judge David Dwoskin in Ottawa threw out Bruyea’s suit pre-trial on request from O’Regan and the government. O’Regan had pushed for dismissal of the case under Ontario’s “anti-SLAPP” legislation, which bars lawsuits that are aimed at stifling legitimate free speech.

Dwoskin found O’Regan’s statements “constituted expression relating to a matter of public interest” and that Bruyea had failed to show his claim had substantial merit. The deputy judge ruled the public interest in dismissal outweighed allowing the claim to proceed to trial.

Bruyea appealed, prompting the higher court to ask whether Dwoskin even had the jurisdiction to dismiss the case based on anti-SLAPP legislation. Ultimately, the court concluded in a precedent-setting decision that deputy judges cannot hear such a motion.

The legislation, the Appeal Court said, expressly allows a judge to hear and rule on such a dismissal motion. However, unlike other provisions, the relevant section of the Courts of Justice Act makes no reference to deputy judges — lawyers appointed to hear small claims cases — having such power.

“Either deputy judges have been given the authority to provide certain relief, or they have not,” the Appeal Court said. “It is not for the court to find authority where the legislature has chosen not to clearly provide it.”

The Appeal Court also refused to decide O’Regan’s request to toss the case based on the anti-SLAPP legislation, saying it would be inappropriate to get involved before the matter had been decided by a lower court.

Bruyea said he was hopeful he could now get on with a trial.

“The minister can then personally explain on the stand his decision to ignore much advice from his own department that my article’s facts and arguments were largely accurate in their eyes,” he said.

Bruyea criticized O’Regan, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and the government for throwing up procedural roadblocks to a proper hearing.

“Bringing these technical motions in small claims court is frankly abusive and detracts from the real case at hand,” Bruyea said. “A powerful government with endless resources should not be permitted to inundate individual Canadians with complex legal motions in order to avoid dealing with the merits of the defamation case.”





Terminator
Terminator

Administrator

Posts : 177
Join date : 2017-10-07

http://cvdbsf.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Sean Bruyea - Page 4 Empty Re: Sean Bruyea

Post by Glideon Yesterday at 6:47 pm

Small claims court judges have little sway on anti-SLAPP cases

Ontario deputy judges lack jurisdiction, ruling says

Sean Bruyea - Page 4 Paul-Champ
Paul Champ says anti-SLAPP motions shouldn’t be overused, particularly in the small claims context



BY Anita Balakrishnan / 15 Jul 2019

Small claims court deputy judges can’t grant orders under an Ontario law meant to prevent proceedings that limit freedom of expression on matters of public interest.

It’s an important decision regarding strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs, says a lawyer who worked on the case.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario said in a July 12 decision that deputy judges don’t have authority to grant orders under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, which sets out when a judge can dismiss a proceeding that “limits debate.”

Ottawa lawyer Paul Champ is principal of Champ & Associates, and represented plaintiff and appellant Sean Bruyea. Champ says the decision, Bruyea v. Canada (Veteran Affairs), 2019 ONCA 599, is a message to the bar that anti-SLAPP motions shouldn’t be overused, particularly in the small claims court context.

“The interesting takeaway for lawyers as a matter of practice is that small claims court shouldn’t be the venue for anti-SLAPP motions,” says Champ.

The dispute before the court was the jurisdiction of judges to use s. 137.1 of the CJA, which aims to “encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; to promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; to discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and to reduce the risk that participation by the public in debates on matters of public interest will be hampered by fear of legal action.”

The defendants in the case were Seamus O’Regan, then Minister of Veteran Affairs, and the Attorney General of Canada, and the Attorney General of Ontario also made written submissions.

Bruyea sued O’Regan for defamation in Ottawa Small Claims Court, claiming damages of $25,000. Bruyea wrote an opinion article in February 2018 saying the then-new Liberal plan for veterans was “all about saving money, yet again, at the expense of veterans,” and called the plan deceptive and “[s]adistically procrastinating.” In a response article in the same publications, the minister wrote that “individuals like Sean Bruyea, who are stating mistruths about Pension for Life and are leaving out parts of our programs, are doing so to suit their own agenda.”

Deputy judge David Dwoskin wrote that Bruyea had not provided evidence that his reputation was harmed, and that the minister’s response article was “to be expected and was both measured and reasonable.” Dwoskin dismissed the action in an August 2018 decision.

“The defences of fair comment, qualified privilege and responsible communication on matters of public interest may be defeated if the plaintiff proves, on a balance of probability, that the defendants were motivated by malice. In my view, he has not done so here,” Dwoskin wrote. “The plaintiff has not shown that there is credible, compelling

evidence that the Minister’s articles were anything but responsible reasonable communication on a public issue (the merits of the Pension for Life Plan) intended to influence public opinion on that issue.”

But the appeal decision, written by Justice Ian Nordheimer, with Justices Peter Lauwers and Michal Fairburn concurring, questioned Dwoskin’s authority to make the order.

“Either deputy judges have been given the authority to provide certain relief, or they have not. It is not for the court to find authority where the Legislature has chosen not to clearly provide it,” Nordheimer wrote. “In the end result, it would have been open to the Legislature to expressly provide in s. 137.1 that deputy judges of the Small Claims Court could grant orders under that section. The Legislature chose not to do so …. It is not for this court to strain the language of the section to provide a power to deputy judges that the Legislature did not, itself, plainly choose to provide.”

Although the parties in the case all argued the small claims court has an important role in access to justice, Nordheimer said that anti-SLAPP is actually “provision that is intended, in proper circumstances, to prohibit access to the courts.”

“[A]ll of the parties place great emphasis on the fact that the Small Claims Court is intended to provide for simpler and less expensive litigation. They argue that the powers of a deputy judge should be given broad and expansive interpretation to encourage access to justice. With respect, such policy arguments cannot override the plain words of the statute,” Nordheimer wrote.

Champ says that the case is an unusual use of anti-SLAPP in that it involved a citizen bringing a defamation motion against the party perceived to be more powerful. Since the small claims court decision in this case, the courts have made a slew of other decisions clarifying the limits of anti-SLAPP legislation, Champ says.

“For my client, it’s a good thing, his claim will be tried on his merits,” says Champ. He says that his client’s case will return to small claims court, but if another anti-SLAPP motion is brought, the small claims court will have to swap a deputy judge out in favour of a superior court judge.

“It will create in the future an administrative burden on small claims courts across the province. Deputy judges are really the only ones hearing cases in small claims court, but now it will have to be a superior court judge.”







Glideon
Glideon

Registered User

Posts : 60
Join date : 2017-11-19

Back to top Go down

Sean Bruyea - Page 4 Empty Re: Sean Bruyea

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum