Bustling, litigious times for Ezra Levant as the Rebel Obergruppenführer girds his pasty loins for yet another courtroom throwdown in May.
On deck this time, his titty-twisting Twitter tormenter Rob “Canadian Cynic” Day (Franks passim), who attracted Ezra’s wrath (and writs) last year by denigrating Levant’s selfless crowd-funder for victims of Alberta wildfires.
“In their natural and ordinary meaning, the Defendant’s words meant and were understood to mean that the Plaintiff was fraudulently diverting money from the disaster victims for his own personal gain, misleading the public, cheating donors, and diverting funds away from victims in Fort McMurray,” complained the Wazzock of Ez, demanding $70,000, plus $25,000 in punitive and exemplary damages, to salve his scalded reputation.
Day, readers will recall, has applied to have Levant’s claim 86’ed as (pas possible!) a SLAPP suit. The hearing, initially scheduled for May 8, has been bumped back to May 30 in Toronto. Good seats still available.
Meanwhile, Frank notes some return fire from old enemy and creditor Khurrum Awan on Ezra’s attempted appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, his desperate final attempt to escape a 2014 defamation judgment
(See E.D.S. #150: Nudnik Supreme).
The hair-puller began in 2008 as a sideshow to the slapfight between Maclones Muzzie-baiter Mark Steyn and the Canadian Islamic Congress, itself far too tedious to revisit here.
Awan sued Levant for calling him a liar, anti-Semite, etc. He won $50,000 in general damages and $30,000 in aggravated damages, plus $70,000 in costs. He got another $15,000 in costs after successfully opposing Ezra’s face-plant of an appeal, rejected last December.
That’s $165,000 so far, not counting the billings of Lügenpants’ long-suffering legalist, Iain MacKinnon. Now there’s another lawyer banging the file, Scott McLean (Denton’s Canada LLP) on record as Ottawa agent for MacKinnon, and Awan is not only angling for dismissal but looking to stick Ezra with his legal bills once again.
In Awan’s March 24 submission to the Supremes, legalist Brian Shiller respectfully submits that Levant is, legally speaking, whistling out his ass:
“Rather than identifying an error of law or an issue of national importance which would allow this Court to overturn the judgement of the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Applicant (Mr. Levant) invites the Court to revisit settled law in three out of the four questions he has identified (questions (a), (b) and (d)). In question (c) Mr. Levant asks this Court to find that both the trial judge and the Ontario Court of Appeal erred by failing to consider the ‘full context’ of the publication when determining whether his description of the Respondent (Mr. Awan) as a ‘liar’ was an expression of opinion and not a statement of fact. Upon examination of both decisions, this assertion cannot be sustained. Both courts expressly consider the ‘context’ of the publication, but Mr. Levant is simply dissatisfied with the outcome of that consideration…
“There is no issue of national or public importance being advanced by Mr. Levant, just a desire to have a second appellate court hear the exact same argument he made that was rejected by the Court of Appeal. He then adds in a floodgates argument that somehow free speech will be in peril if the findings of the trial judge are not overturned. Mr. Levant does not offer any compelling argument that the issue transcends him. The simple fact is that Mr. Levant left his journalistic integrity by the side of the road when he decided to report on Mr. Awan’s sworn testimony before the BC Human Rights Tribunal.”
The Santas of Wellington Street so far maintain their oracular silence on whether they will hear the plaintive pleadings of the pisher.