Judge delays decision case being watched by free speech advocates across Canada
Perth - It will be late January at the earliest before ratepayer being sued for alleged defamation by the Ontario Township of Montague finds out whether he will have to go to trial.
Donald Page was targeted by the township, located about an hour southwest of Ottawa, after he filed a complaint in January 2005 with the Ontario fire marshal's office.
Page alleged that local volunteer firefighters performed inadequately in dealing with a fire that claimed a local woman's life. The case is being watched across Canada because it raises the fundamental issue of the right of citizens to criticize the actions of their elected governments.
It is a rare case with dangerous implications for anyone who locks horns with municipal officials. If the township wins, it essentially means that local councils, acting as a group rather than as individuals, can use local tax money to stifle dissent by the very people who are paying their legal bills.
Justice Kenneth Pedlar adjourned the case for at least a month after hearing three hours of arguments on Dec. 22 from both sides, and also from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
The CCLA was permitted to speak as "a friend of the court." Earlier, when CCLA representatives attempted to address the council itself at a public meeting, they were blocked from speaking.
Members of the council are Gary Doyle, a drywall business operator from Smiths Falls who has been the township reeve for more than a decade and who also sits on the Lanark County Council; David Schoular, a business consultant who is the deputy reeve; Bill Eckersley, also a businessman; Lita Richards, a member of the Montague Public School Council, and Vince Carroll.
Governments more constrained than citizens
CCLA lawyer Ryder Gilliland cited the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in arguing that the matter should not be allowed to go to trial. Municipal councillors are free to sue others as individual citizens if they feel aggrieved but they should not be allowed to do so collectively as an elected body, he told the court.
Gilliland said a decision to let the case go forward will send a strong message to citizens everywhere that public dissent will not be tolerated, thus placing undue infringement on the Charter right to free speech.
Tim Ray, a lawyer representing the township, said no rights are absolute and that councils, in their role as municipal managers, also have a reputation at stake in such matters. He cited a legal precedent in a British Columbia case in which he said this argument had been accepted by the courts.
The case is worrisome for groups like labour unions, which have a natural adversarial relationship with municipal councils.
Local councils tend to be disproportionately comprised of establishment-minded local businessmen and citizens who are ideologically opposed to unions.
Presumably, many would be happy to use the precedent such a case might offer to inhibit the activities of such dissident groups.
In Canada, politicians enjoy immunity in Parliament and provincial legislatures from any statements they make about each other or about citizens in general. They cannot be sued if their statements are made inside Parliament or the legislature.
The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) is monitoring the case and will keep members up to date on developments. NUPGE
More information:
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
