As I informed my adoring readership recently, Rebel News' Obergruppenfuhrer Ezra Levant just lost his third straight (expensive) anti-SLAPP motion, but what's mirth-making is the mind-blowing level of ineptness of his counsel, who apparently has no idea how this legislation actually works and has never taken the time to figure it out.
Let's be clear -- Ezra was going to lose this motion no matter what, but the arguments put forward by his lawyer are truly head-shaking in their irrelevance and illogic. Here, let me give you just two examples.
From the judge's mercifully short ruling, here's paragraph 22:
"[22] The plaintiff responds that this stage of this proceeding does not require “a fully developed damages brief”. I agree. However, as stated in 1704604 Ontario Limited v. Pointes Protection Association, supra (at paragraph 71) to paraphrase, while the harm need not be monetized, there needs to be the “existence” of harm. That is, some harm needs to be identified. Here, the plaintiff has acknowledged that there has been no loss of subscribers. There was no evidence of Rebel News followers thinking less of or contributing less financially to Rebel News as a result of the allegedly defamatory tweet."
Let me explain what's happening here. Ontario's anti-SLAPP legislation is simply a filter -- it is a weeding out mechanism whose purpose is to identify defamation actions that are so utterly without merit or value that there is no point letting them go to trial. And one of the inarguable requirements for your defamation action to defeat the defendant's anti-SLAPP motion and be so allowed to proceed is that you must show some harm or damage of some kind. Any kind -- reputational, financial, just something. But here's the sticky detail.
At the anti-SLAPP stage, you are not required to give a full-blown, fully-costed spreadsheet of the harm you've suffered. By way of example, say you're suing because someone else's alleged defamation cost you business. At trial, you would of course present a comprehensive analysis of the damage, with associated costs and so on. However, for the purposes of the anti-SLAPP motion, that is not necessary -- all that's necessary is you produce some general evidence of harm, such as perhaps some e-mails from clients saying they weren't going to work with you anymore.
See how that works? At the anti-SLAPP stage, no one is asking for excruciating minutiae; rather, all the judge is after is for you to show that there has been harm. This is a painfully simple concept that even first-year law students with massive head injuries have been able to understand by now, and yet ... and yet, Ezra's lawyer seems to have missed that class since, as you can see above, he is clearly making the argument that he need provide no such evidence of any kind, apparently suggesting that can all wait until trial or something. And as you can also see, the judge is having none of it, clearly (with some exasperation) having to explain to Ezra's lawyer how the legislation actually works. But it gets so much worse.
Here's the very next paragraph, wherein Ezra's lawyer ... well, just read it first:
"[23] An allegation was raised that the comment in issue reduced or eliminated a successful application by employees of Rebel News to the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery for membership. However, production of letters to those employees, dated October 29, 2020, from the executive of the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery fails to set out any direct or indirect reference to the allegedly defamatory tweet. Rather, it explains that, what Rebel News admitted on this motion to be accurate, that the approach taken by Rebel News of being active participants in their stories and taking partian positions in relation to politicians or political parties, was not in accordance with that organization’s requirement to adhere to its “generally accepted journalistic principles and practices”."
This is a fascinating claim, since it clearly suggests that the alleged defamation was the cause of Rebel News being denied membership in the Canadian PPG and, if this was true, it actually would represent actual harm, and Ezra would have satisfied that particular test of the anti-SLAPP legislation. Let me say that again -- if Ezra could establish that the alleged defamation was why he was given the brush-off by the PPG, he would have his damage. So what's the problem?
Dear freaking God ... having made that claim and apparently suggesting it was backed up by actual correspondence from the PPG, Ezra's lawyer produces said correspondence ... which says nothing of the sort. Let me say that again -- Ezra's lawyer clearly argued that damage would be established by the correspondence from the PPG, and when forced to produce the correspondence, it established absolutely nothing of the sort.
How dense must you be to have done this? How thick would you need to be to think that maybe the judge would just take your word for something and not, you know, actually read the letters? And how humiliating would it be to have made that claim in court, and have the judge hypothetically mutter something like, "I'm sorry, I don't see the slightest evidence of what you are currently yapping on about."?
With counsel like this, it's understandable why Ezra is currently on such a spectacular losing streak. One can only hope for more hysterically entertaining (and insanely expensive) dumbassery of the kind in the near future.
AFTERSNARK: One wonders what is going through the minds of Rebel News' crack videographers as they humiliate themselves publicly begging for dosh to upgrade their crappy equipment:
even as they watch Ezra piss away a total of $151,439.76 in Rebel funds because his widdle feewings were hurt:
One wonders if these clueless young 'uns are ever going to twig to the fact that their efforts are simply subsidizing the pointless, vindictive legal actions of a self-promoting narcissist.
Good luck with that fundraiser, kids.
