Several recent cases in Ontario have raised the issue of how governments officials handle defamation lawsuits.A case that has drawn considerable scrutiny is that of Toronto Coun. Adrian Heaps, the defendant in a defamation lawsuit dating back to the time he was a candidate for city council. The city’s plan to cover his legal bills in the case will come before council again later this month as anger over the payout grows.
Part of the controversy centres on the fact Heaps wasn’t even a sitting councillor at the time of the offence. But elsewhere, municipal councils are funding defamation litigation in similarly contentious circumstances.
In Wellington County, for example, the municipality is covering the legal bills for an action launched by the mayor of Puslinch, Ont., Brad Whitcombe, and county chief administrative officer Scott Wilson.
That move prompted the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to intervene in a bid to dismiss the case. It argues paying the two officials’ legal costs amounts to an effort to circumvent legal prohibitions on governments from suing for libel.
In Toronto, the same questions came up last year when Coun. Sandra Bussin sought city money to help her with a defamation case she had launched. Now, dissent over the Heaps affair has prompted a legal challenge by the fledgling Toronto Party against the politicians who voted to pay him. It’s clear, then, that the issue has become a messy one for municipal councils.
In the case of politicians, it’s fairly obvious that paying their legal bills to sue members of the public represents a threat to free speech. Defending city councillors who face lawsuits over actions they take in the course of their duties is one thing, but funding cases they themselves undertake is another.
After all, they should expect legitimate criticism from the public and, if it’s unfair, they have plenty of venues and resources for rebutting it. If that’s not good enough, they can pay for the litigation themselves.
More difficult, however, are cases such as the Wellington County one. One of the plaintiffs there is a bureaucrat who, it’s arguable, should receive some legal protection from libelous comments. The allegations, a recent judgment in the dismissal motion noted, include innuendos of criminal behaviour on behalf of the plaintiffs on a local web site called smelly-welly.com.
In response to the CCLA intervention, the motions judge ruled there was insufficient legal authority to
dismiss the case over the county funding. But it’s time the courts, or Queen’s Park, dealt with the issue.
Beyond the fact that one of the plaintiffs in the case is a politician, the county’s move could have an ulterior motive of trying to silence dissent under the guise of helping two of its officials with a legal issue. For his part, the judge noted those questions might come out at trial. Hopefully, that happens given the ongoing controversies.
Certainly, defending public officials in court over matters related to their duties is legitimate. But funding the lawsuits they themselves initiate comes dangerously close to crossing the line. As a result, it’s time for a thorough discussion on when it’s appropriate to pay for public officials’ legal bills in defamation cases.
Part of the controversy centres on the fact Heaps wasn’t even a sitting councillor at the time of the offence. But elsewhere, municipal councils are funding defamation litigation in similarly contentious circumstances.
In Wellington County, for example, the municipality is covering the legal bills for an action launched by the mayor of Puslinch, Ont., Brad Whitcombe, and county chief administrative officer Scott Wilson.
That move prompted the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to intervene in a bid to dismiss the case. It argues paying the two officials’ legal costs amounts to an effort to circumvent legal prohibitions on governments from suing for libel.
In Toronto, the same questions came up last year when Coun. Sandra Bussin sought city money to help her with a defamation case she had launched. Now, dissent over the Heaps affair has prompted a legal challenge by the fledgling Toronto Party against the politicians who voted to pay him. It’s clear, then, that the issue has become a messy one for municipal councils.
In the case of politicians, it’s fairly obvious that paying their legal bills to sue members of the public represents a threat to free speech. Defending city councillors who face lawsuits over actions they take in the course of their duties is one thing, but funding cases they themselves undertake is another.
After all, they should expect legitimate criticism from the public and, if it’s unfair, they have plenty of venues and resources for rebutting it. If that’s not good enough, they can pay for the litigation themselves.
More difficult, however, are cases such as the Wellington County one. One of the plaintiffs there is a bureaucrat who, it’s arguable, should receive some legal protection from libelous comments. The allegations, a recent judgment in the dismissal motion noted, include innuendos of criminal behaviour on behalf of the plaintiffs on a local web site called smelly-welly.com.
In response to the CCLA intervention, the motions judge ruled there was insufficient legal authority to
dismiss the case over the county funding. But it’s time the courts, or Queen’s Park, dealt with the issue.
Beyond the fact that one of the plaintiffs in the case is a politician, the county’s move could have an ulterior motive of trying to silence dissent under the guise of helping two of its officials with a legal issue. For his part, the judge noted those questions might come out at trial. Hopefully, that happens given the ongoing controversies.
Certainly, defending public officials in court over matters related to their duties is legitimate. But funding the lawsuits they themselves initiate comes dangerously close to crossing the line. As a result, it’s time for a thorough discussion on when it’s appropriate to pay for public officials’ legal bills in defamation cases.
- Glenn Kauth
