Ontario Court of Appeals ruling - Baglow v. Fourniers

[WestViking]

We lost. We have to have a full trial, and we have to pay his costs.

Appeal, he did.

The appeal court held that the Ontario superior court ought not to have allowed the motion to dismiss and that the original action should procede to trial. We need to find funds for the defence.

[wildernessvoice]

:shock:

It means that Connie and Mark are the test case, at their own expense, so that this judge can get a basis for future rulings. Apparently the cut and dried, simple straight forwardness of this issue is irrelevant for someone who has a curiosity about what "might" come of it. Awarding costs is absurd in the xtreme and is definitely punitive when no punishment is called for!!!

The judiciary is notoriously liebral and far left of center ... in a totally unbiased and immensely fair manner of course. As long ans their serenity isn't compromised I assume.

The appeal came about as a decision made by Justice P. Annis of the Superior Court of Justice. It appears that Justice P. Annis of the Superior Court of Justice was in error.
Solution? Let Justice P. Annis of the Superior Court of Justice pay for Drdawg's legal expenses!

[drummer]

We lost. We have to have a full trial, and we have to pay his costs.

I suspected this sort of treachery. He outs himself, then sues for defamation and the court agrees that you are liable.

Only in Kanada you say?

The court did not say they were liable. Just that the matter should go to trial. The first judge awarded costs to Mark and Connie, and the appeals judge awarded more or less the same costs to Baglow. He hasn't won his defamation case.

[Red Green]

:shock:

It means that Connie and Mark are the test case, at their own expense, so that this judge can get a basis for future rulings. Apparently the cut and dried, simple straight forwardness of this issue is irrelevant for someone who has a curiosity about what "might" come of it. Awarding costs is absurd in the xtreme and is definitely punitive when no punishment is called for!!!

The judiciary is notoriously liebral and far left of center ... in a totally unbiased and immensely fair manner of course. As long ans their serenity isn't compromised I assume.

The appeal came about as a decision made by Justice P. Annis of the Superior Court of Justice. It appears that Justice P. Annis of the Superior Court of Justice was in error.
Solution? Let Justice P. Annis of the Superior Court of Justice pay for Drdawg's legal expenses!

That part of the ruling seems grossly unfair to me. The judge should have left that out and Dawg could collect for his court costs if he prevailed at trial.

[Narrow Back]

As the old saw goes, "it's always darkest before the dawn". No doubt it seems pitch-black right now, but hang tough you two. You have friends. We will prevail.

[styky]

We lost. We have to have a full trial, and we have to pay his costs.

Appeal, he did.

The appeal court held that the Ontario superior court ought not to have allowed the motion to dismiss and that the original action should procede to trial. We need to find funds for the defence.

I'll check the finances and see what I can provide.

[ChangingColours]

Unfreakingbelievable. I really thought this was a done deal - I was overly optimistic, I guess.

[pirapoi]

so WHAT DOES THIS MEAN:

Disposition

[39] For the foregoing reasons, I would allow the appeal, set aside the order below, and direct that the action proceed to trial.

[40] The appellant is entitled to his costs of the appeal, fixed in the total amount of $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes.

[41] Costs below were fixed in the amount of $6,500 in favour of the respondents. I see no reason why the appellant should not be entitled to the costs below in the same amount.

I believe it means that the cost are $14,000

[Faramir]

We lost. We have to have a full trial, and we have to pay his costs.

Good Lord Connie. OMG. The Justice just encourages more dead beats to abuse the process. Welcome to Canadian "justice". I'm so sorry and I'm so pissed off.

[Faramir]

We lost. We have to have a full trial, and we have to pay his costs.

Appeal, he did.

The appeal court held that the Ontario superior court ought not to have allowed the motion to dismiss and that the original action should procede to trial. We need to find funds for the defence.

Unlike the United States, for some strange reason, Canadian justice hates the idea of throwing out any suits as frivolous. They figure a person who sues MUST have a good reason to do so, and simply don't recognize the long history of lawfare that exists in both countries. In fact it doesn't matter than a plaintiff happens to be a serial litigator - apparently that is there prerogative.

[Connie Fournier]

Yes, pirapoi. It means that, so far, this debacle has cost us well over $50,000...and, basically, we are back to square one with a full trial ahead. All because we run a website where one person's pseudonym insulted another person's pseudonym.

We are now required to come up with expert witnesses, too. This will likely cost us another $50,000 or so in itself.

We may be witnessing the end of internet forums and blogs that allow comments. Who in their right mind would want to risk being subjected to this kind of a financial assualt before even being shown to be guilty of anything?

[Edward Kennedy]

What generally happens historically is that injustice runs it's course for as long as peope tolerate the gobshite and then the reaction is extreme. It is much like a spring being wound and all of a sudden, the keeper fails and it releases a pile of energy...that is destructive.

[Mark Fournier]

The powers that be would love nothing more than a nation of Canadians too afraid to voice unapproved political opinions on the internet. We can't leave the law as it now stands or we all fall. We can't allow ourselves to be silenced by those who would sell our freedom of all Canadians for personal gain.

[Peter O'Donnell]

Seems like a contaminated decision made in a political rather than a legal context.

[Red Green]

The powers that be would love nothing more than a nation of Canadians too afraid to voice unapproved political opinions on the internet. We can't leave the law as it now stands or we all fall. We can't allow ourselves to be silenced by those who would sell our freedom of all Canadians for personal gain.

Go git em Mark!

I am surprised there is not a legal organization that would take up this cause seeing as what is at stake. It's unfortunate that you two are the unwitting legal trailblazers for internet free speech.