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.

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.