COWARDS & LYING SKUNKS - ANTI-SLAPP LEGISLATION

Anti-SLAPP legislation came to Ontario about ten years too late for me. My wife and I were sued for Libel because I publicly claimed that a teacher was unstable only after going to the principal, my trustee and then to a Superintendent at the Waterloo Region District School Board. The school board employees closed ranks and refused to help us or other parents in a similar situation. The irony is that a piece of the plaintiff's case was her medical records which indeed showed a long history of various mental ailments. My wife won in court despite us not having a lawyer and despite a biased, possibly incompetent judge (Robert Reilly). His behaviour during trial bordered on the illegal and the cowardly Kitchener-Waterloo Record who attended the entire trial refused to publish anything that went on during trial. Only after the decision was released months later did they publish the ridiculous and asinine decision of Judge Reilly.

Saturday's Waterloo Region Record has a story titled "Ontario court dismisses Subway's lawsuit against CBC". This story illustrates the principle in the anti-SLAPP legislation. SLAPP of course stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. The teacher's behaviour was adversely affecting a number of children in her class including my son. Public education is as obvious a matter of public interest as there could possibly be. That is the crux of the matter in this newspaper story as the CBC presented what they thought was accurate information to the public in their show "Marketplace". Unlike my case, Marketplace relied upon what turned out to be inaccurate information and were exonerated regardless due to the public interest aspects they were presenting..

In my case proper intervention hopefully by education professionals was needed but they refused to do any such thing. They lied like the dogs and cowards they are and then hid behind their taxpayer funded lawyers. Without a lawyer I clearly, with assistance from numerous parent witnesses, proved that my words were correct and my actions reasonable under the circumstances. The good judge, not satisfied with tilting the playing field against my wife and I at every opportunity, then in his decision exonerated my wife who not only had nothing to do with my actions and words but in fact had zero testimony produced at trial accusing her of anything. Just naming her in the lawsuit was outrageous and that alone should have made the judge order her to be paid costs from the Plaintiff. It did not because the Judge was an unrepentant ignoramus among other flaws.

I lost the decision because I didn't have power, money or influence. I also did not have the money to appeal the asinine decision which emboldened Judge Reilly as he already knew that. Both a coward and a bully. Despite all this no apology was given by me to the Plaintiff as none was deserved and not a nickel paid to the Plaintiff. All this was done legally after the fact partly with the assistance of pro bono (working for free) lawyers plus more. This Settlement was filed many, many years ago in Superior Court and I sincerely hope that Judge Reilly choked on it.

P.S. The link is to an older story about Subway's lawsuit against the CBC over their "Marketplace " story. The story from last Saturday did not come up in the Record Search Archives under the title they had on their Saturday story in the edition of the paper that I received.