Maxim Bernier must wait to find out if he can sue Warren Kinsella Politics | News | The sun

LHe is due to consider Mr Kinsella’s lawyers’ request on Monday to declare Maxim Bernier’s claim abusive and to dismiss it.

The leader of the People’s Party of Canada has filed a lawsuit over his remarks about Kinsella, paying 5,000 325,000 in damages.

Last month, Mr. David Schiller, representing Mr. Kinsella, argued before Judge Colum McLeod that Mr. Bernier’s lawsuit was nothing more than a fraudulent injunction, also known as the SLAPP (tactical lawsuit against public participation), an acronym for its client. . Gugging chase is banned in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia.

Racist attacks

On Monday, Maxim Bernier’s lawyers argued that their client’s policy was in no way a fraudulent order, but a fully justified defamation suit. They argue that Warren Kinsella has repeatedly emphasized that Maxim Bernier is racist, gay, and misogynistic. Mr. Kinsella and his organization, the Daisy Group, have been criticized by Maxim Bernier for being associated with the right-right movement of white supremacists, neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan, sometimes on his blog, and sometimes on social networks.

They agreed that Mr. Kinsella had published several defamatory remarks without checking with Mr. Bernier‌ whether he was respecting his original words or his positions.

In addition, it was confirmed that Mr. Kinsella and his Fame Daisy Group were paid to conduct the smear campaign. According to a recording released by the CBC, the order came from two people close to Mr Bernier’s party, the Conservative Party of Canada. The Conservative Party knocked on the door to find its own party after losing to Andrew Scheer in the 2018 CCP leadership race.

Attempt to avoid

Speaking for Mr. Bernier, your Andre Marin, Warren Kinsella argued that the only reason he was trying to dismiss his client’s lawsuit was that his remarks about Mr. Bernier could not be proven true and therefore they did not cause defamation.

His colleague Mark Bowie argued that Warren Kinsella’s words were a clear attack on Mr Bernier’s reputation, “that fame is the most important asset a person can possess.” In their view, the public interest is not served by the defense of false, misleading or deceptive remarks and Mr. Kinsella is only trying to escape a lawsuit he loses.

No effect on election result

In a counter-answer, Your Schiller reiterated that Maxim Bernier’s lawyers could not prove that the loss suffered by their client was more important than the need to defend Warren Kinsella’s freedom of expression.

Mr Schiller specifically argued that Mr Bernier had failed to prove the alleged causal link between Mr Kinsella’s remarks and the fact that he lost his seat in the Commons in the 2019 election.

He argues that allowing a client to sue for criticizing a politician’s ideas discourages citizens from challenging their positions in politics. However, Justice McLeod interrupted him at this point, stressing the importance of targeting those who wished to be elected to the highest offices in the state and discouraging the spread of lies.

The decision was made on the advice of Judge McLeod. It will ultimately determine whether Maxim Bernier’s career can move forward.