Category Archives: Lawsuit

Anglican Planet: Bishop charges journalist with libel

Posted on by
4

Read the whole article here:

AN ANGLICAN JOURNALIST has been charged with making libelous comments about a bishop in the Anglican Church of Canada. On Feb.19th, David Jenkins was served personally with a statement of claim for defamation of character from the diocesan Bishop of Niagara, Michael Bird.

[…..]

Another Anglican bishop, Grant LeMarquand, the Bishop for the Horn of Africa, who, like Bird, has also been criticized on Samizdat, commented in an online discussion on the Anglican Journal website: “I have been criticized on the same blog site but it never crossed my mind that a lawsuit was an option. In fact, that the Bishop of Niagara would even consider such an action as this attempt to silence criticism and dissent should make us all cringe. Should the bishop win his case, the principle of free speech will be diminished and all Canadians will all [sic] be lessened as a result.”

Jenkins said that “the pleadings are now closed and we will commence the discovery process on Oct. 17th.”

As the article notes, the next step in my little adventure is the Examination for Discovery which will occur on October 17th. For those who feel inclined to pray, I would value your prayers for wisdom on that date.

Michael Bird v. David Jenkins lawsuit. Update 1

Posted on by
5

First let me say something about how Canadian law works in defamation cases. I will use hypothetical offers to settle.

Let’s say the plaintiff make the defendant an offer to settle for $100,000. If the defendant turns down the offer, loses the case and the plaintiff is awarded $101,000 in damages, the plaintiff can make a claim upon the defendant for 100% of his legal fees since the date of the offer.

If the defendant makes an offer to settle for $50,000, the plaintiff turns it down, the defendant still loses and the plaintiff is awarded $49,000 in damages, the defendant can make a claim on the plaintiff for his (the defendant’s) legal fees since the date of his offer.

If both parties make the above offers and the plaintiff is awarded damages that fall between the two offers, the plaintiff can still make a claim for his legal fees but the amount awarded would be much less than 100%.

Hence the case becomes a bluffing contest between the plaintiff and defendant: a cross between a poker game and a protection racket, having little to do with the law or justice. In Canada between 80 and 90 per cent of defamation cases are settled in this way.

For my particular case, there are 31 items in dispute and I only have to lose on one of them to lose the entire case; as of this writing, we have not settled..

Both sides have exchanged an affidavit of documents for Discovery. The Examinations for Discovery were set for August but have been delayed until the latter part of October owing to the bishop’s vacation among other things.

I had written to Justin Welby thinking he might be interested to know that a Canadian bishop is suing a parishioner; I suspect he didn’t see the letter, but I received a pleasant response from his Liaison Officer:

Dear Mr Jenkins

Thank you for your e-mail of 5 June 2013 to the Archbishop of Canterbury concerning the statement of claim that has been made against you by Bishop Michael Bird, which you sent for his information.

Thank you for taking the time to write in this way.  I fear that because the Archbishop has no archiepiscopal jurisdiction in any Province other than his own, it would not be possible for him to intervene in any way in what must be a very difficult situation for you.  Please, nevertheless, be assured of his prayers that this lawsuit will be resolved amicably.

With all best wishes.

Anglican Journal print edition distortions

Posted on by
8

The Anglican Journal, in its print edition, is carrying the “Bishop sues Blogger for Defamation” story (page 12), but has made an interesting change to the online article.

The online Journal article correctly says this:

The bishop is seeking $400,000 in damages as well as legal costs. The suit also seeks “an interim and a permanent injunction requiring the defendant and any Internet service provider or host sites to remove or cause to be removed the web site found at www.anglicansamizdat.net and any and all defamatory material that the defendant has posted or caused to be posted anywhere else on the internet; an interim and permanent injunction prohibiting the defendant from publishing or causing to be published any further comment about the plaintiff.”

That is what is in the statement of claim. Since the complained of items comprise about 1% of all posts on Anglican Samizdat, by seeking an injunction to shut down the entire blog, the statement of claim is clearly attempting to stifle my charter guaranteed right of freedom of expression.

The print version conveniently leaves out: [t]he suit also seeks “an interim and a permanent injunction requiring the defendant and any Internet service provider or host sites to remove or cause to be removed the web site found at www.anglicansamizdat.net and, by doing so, erroneously implies that the bishop is merely seeking removal of the 31 posts in dispute:

The bishop is seeking $400,000 in damages as well as legal costs and the removal of all the defamatory material posted.—Leigh Anne Williams.

And, of course, at this point the material is only allegedly defamatory.

Church of England Newspaper: Cana­dian Bishop takes ac­tion against a trou­ble­some blog­ger

Posted on by
8

From this Sunday’s Church of England Newspaper. It’s subscription only, so I can’t post a link. I have removed a paragraph containing a description of a couple of the items in dispute:

The Church of England Newspaper
12 May, 2013

Cana­dian Bishop takes ac­tion against a trou­ble­some blog­ger

THE BISHOP of the Dio­cese of Ni­a­gara in the Angli­can Church of Canada has filed a law­suit against con­ser­va­tive blog­ger claim­ing “defama­tion of char­ac­ter”.

On 19 Fe­bru­ary David Jenk­ins, au­thor of the Angli­can Samiz­dat blog re­ceived no­tice that Bishop Bird had asked a court to shut down his blog, ban him from mak­ing fur­ther com­ments about him and to pay him $400,000 in dam­ages.

Mr Jenk­ins stated that he had been sur­prised by the law­suit. “Con­trary to what one might ex­pect in such cir­cum­stances, I did not re­ceive a cease and de­sist let­ter in ad­vance of the suit.”

The State­ment of Claim filed with the On­tario Su­pe­rior Court Jus­tice al­leged Mr Jenk­ins ma­li­ciously and falsely stated Bishop Bird was a “weak and in­ef­fec­tual leader and that his ac­tions were mo­ti­vated by avarice or fi­nan­cial gain”. He also claimed that the bishop was a “thief” and had a “sex­ual fetish”, and that he was an “athe­ist and heretic bent upon the de­struc­tion of Chris­tian­ity.”

[….]

The 31 posts cited in the com­plaint were sub­se­quently re­moved from his web­site. At the bishop’s re­quest other posts were also tak­ing down, Mr Jenk­ins noted, “as a ges­ture of good faith.”

“I have made of­fers to set­tle and meet/talk, but they have been re­jected,” he added.

Anglican Journal: Bishop sues blogger for defamation

Posted on by
22

Leave your comments here; I would be interested to know how long they stay up (or if they even appear):

Bishop Michael Bird of the diocese of Niagara has filed a defamation lawsuit with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against blogger David Jenkins.

The suit alleges that, in his blog Anglican Samizdat, Jenkins has published comments about Bird that were injurious to his “credit, character and reputation…in his office as spiritual leader and Bishop of the Diocese and in his occupation as priest…”

Hamilton lawyer Graydon Sheppard, who is representing the bishop, told the Anglican Journal that the lawsuit was a last resort measure from the bishop. “He, and to some extent, his wife, have been under constant attack for more than two years by this blogger…” Jenkins, he added, “has gone beyond fair comment and debate about doctrinal matters.”

What is it like, being sued for libel?

Posted on by
12

It is like participating in a poker game while in the middle of a fencing match. There is thrust, parry, bluff, counter-bluff all of which must be executed with one hand because the other is holding your wallet containing money for the bets – and it is open, spewing its contents in all directions.

The legal system is a wonderful thing.