The B.C. Supreme Court awarded $50,000 in damages to climate scientist Andrew Weaver in a ruling Friday that confirms articles published by the National Post defamed his character.

The ruling names Terence Corcoran, editor of the Financial Post, Peter Foster, a columnist at the National Post, Kevin Libin, a journalist that contributes to the Financial Post and National Post publisher Gordon Fisher.

Four articles published in 2009 and 2010 refer to Weaver, now MLA for Canada’s Green Party, as an “alarmist” who disseminates “agit-prop” and a “sensationalist” that “cherry-picked” data as “Canada’s warmest spinner-in-chief.” Weaver was previously a lead author on a number of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports.

In the damages section of the ruling (attached below), Madam Justice Emily Burke notes, “the defamation in this case was serious. It offended Dr. Weaver’s character and the defendants refused to publish a retraction.”

Justice Burke concluded the defendants “have been careless or indifferent to the accuracy of the facts,” adding, “they were more interested in espousing a particular view than assessing the accuracy of the facts."

Weaver told DeSmog Canada he’s “thrilled” with the ruling.

"I am absolutely thrilled with today's B.C. Supreme Court judgment in my libel case against the National Post, Terence Corcoran, Peter Foster, Kevin Libin and Gordon Fisher.”

Weaver said he initiated the lawsuit in 2010 when the National Post refused to retract the offending articles “that attributed to me statements I never made, accused me of things I never did, and attacked me for views I never held."

“I felt I had to take this matter to court to clear my name and correct the public record. This judgment does precisely that.”

Dr. Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute and member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, said the ruling “is a victory for climate scientists everywhere.”

There is “an extremely long history of efforts by climate deniers and contrarians to attack not just climate science, but climate scientists: to smear their scientific reputations, to distort their statements, and to make false and defamatory accusations,” Gleick told DeSmog Canada.

Gleick said defamation “has been a standard tactic for years, especially as the science of climate change has continued to strengthen and solidify.”

The attack on Weaver’s credibility is unfortunately only one of many examples, he said.

“While I'm sure the ruling will not stop the continued assault on climate science and scientists, it should certainly put people on notice that there is a responsibility to avoid such irresponsible attacks and a real cost for failing to do so. I hope this ruling has that effect."

Weaver said he is looking forward to the defendants “publishing a complete retraction and removing the offending articles from electronic databases.”

The four articles in question, as listed in the court ruling, can be seen below. Three of these articles still appear on the National Post’s website at the time of publication.

As part of his suit, Weaver also argued the National Post should take responsibility for the articles republished on third-party sites.

“I further look forward to them withdrawing consent given to third parties to re-publish the articles and to require them to cease re-publication,” Weaver said.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Over 140 groups, including environmental organizations, unions and freedom of expression advocates have signed a petition urging the Ontario legislature to enact strong legislation to prevent the abuse of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs).

According to a press release from Greenpeace Canada, anti-SLAPP laws have already been implemented in Quebec, a majority of US states (28) and several other countries "to prevent powerful companies and individuals from lodging meritless lawsuits, often for defamation, which are designed not to protect reputation but to silence critics."

These lawsuits "make it more difficult for civil society to act as watchdog of the powerful," curbing freedom of expression by saddling defendants, "often public interest advocacy groups, with with massive legal fees, draining their resources and distracting them from their core work," says Greenpeace.

Shane Moffatt, forest campaigner for Greenpeace Canada, said that "these meritless lawsuits tangle up our courts and waste taxpayers' dollars," and that "it is time to move quickly to protect Ontarians when talking about the issues that matter most to them."

The petition presented to Ontario MPPs has been signed by over 140 groups, including Greenpeace Canada, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, Council of Canadians, Marineland Animal Defense, and the Centre for Law and Democracy. The petition expresses concern at the increasing use of SLAPPs and denounces it as a form of "legal harassment" by corporations and governments that is a "growing threat to meaningful citizen participation."

The groups stand behind the right of individuals and organizations "to freely express opinions on issues of public interest, including the future of Canada's forests, without fear of lawsuit."

The petition cites "citizens reporting of environmental violations, filing complaints with government agencies, contacting the media, speaking at public meetings, participating at hearings before administrative tribunals or engaging in public campaigns" as among the activities that provoke SLAPPs.  

"Deep pocketed corporations must be prevented from attacking organizations or individuals with abusive lawsuits to shut down public debate," said Maude Barlow, national chair of the Council of Canadians. "They undermine the court system and impose a chilling effect on public debate."

Several of the groups supporting the petition have been targeted by SLAPPs. Greenpeace Canada is fighting a $7-million defamation lawsuit brought by logging giant Resolute Forest Products, donations towards fighting which can be made online. Marineland Animal Defense founder Dylan Powell is facing a $1.5 million SLAPP from Marineland. Both cases are for engaging in public interest criticism.

The issue of SLAPPs being abused came to prominence in Ontario when Big Bay Point residents were hit with a $3.2 million lawsuit by developers.

"Our organizations play a crucial role in shining a light on issues the public would otherwise never be aware of," said Powell, of Marineland Animal Defense. "Unfortunately, case law offers little protection and this legislative void will be used as leverage until anti-SLAPP legislation exists."

"The need for effective anti-SLAPP laws has been proven around the world," said Toby Mendel, Executive Director of the Centre for Law and Democracy and Annie Game, Executive Director of Canadian Journalists for Free Expression. "It is critical that Ontario and other Canadian jurisdictions bring themselves into line with these global developments."

Organizations can sign the petition letter online.

Image Credit: CNW Group / Green News

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Recently the BC Court of Appeal fined an anti-fish farm activist named Don Staniford $75,000 plus court fees for defamation. Staniford’s work to advertise the dangers fish farms pose to wild salmon stocks did not constitute fair comment, said the judge, because he failed to adequately cite scientific information.

Staniford, a British citizen visiting BC, campaigned against Norwegian fish farming giant Mainstream Canada with mock cigarette packages reading “Salmon Farming Kills,” “Salmon Farming is Poison,” and “Salmon Farming Seriously Damages Health.” The Court of Appeal found these statements to be defamatory.

Although the BC Supreme Court ruled Staniford’s message legally fell within his right to ‘fair comment,’ the BC Court of Appeal overturned that decision, saying Staniford’s claims failed to fully meet the requirements needed to invoke fair comment protections. What he neglected to do was ‘sufficiently state’ the factual basis of his claims on what the court deemed to be the defamatory pages on his website and a press release.

Although Staniford provided access to scientific information elsewhere on his blog, the court was not willing to consider the website’s content as a whole.

The crucial element of the ruling lies in this one detail: the court agreed that Staniford would have qualified for the defence of ‘fair comment’ to win his case if he had been clearer about where his information came from.

For activists, advocates, citizen journalists and campaigners working on issues related to big industry in Canada, the BC Court of Appeal’s decision is likely to cause some concern.

Andrew Gage, staff lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law, says that “there is a real risk that the decision will chill legitimate public debate” in Canada, especially from within the activist community.

“In general deep-pocketed companies suing individuals is not a level playing field and has the effect of silencing industry critics. Moreover, defamation law, despite some important advances in recent years, in my view still favours private interests over public interest debate,” he told DeSmog Canada.

Although, he adds, “it’s not all a bad news story.” Individuals are still free to discern what science is reliable and what science may reflect the interests of industry.

“The BC Court of Appeal decision left untouched the ruling by the BC Supreme Court that judges should not choose between different versions of the science, allowing activists to speak about scientific information that may be at odds with industry-funded scientists,” he said.  

The issue of sufficient citation, however, stands.

“On the other hand” he said, “and this is where the court didn't think Staniford did enough, activists will apparently need to be very active in directing the public to the scientific or other factual information on which their statements are based. While that may be reasonable for articles and blog posts, it could be challenging for some forms of graphic activism – bumper stickers and posters, for example.”

Another notable aspect of the case is the divide it draws between corporate accountability and the duties of individuals.

Individuals like Staniford are responsible for actively citing scientific sources to defend their claims regarding industrial practices. On the other side of the public arena, especially in advertising, industrial corporations are not.

Just think back to Enbridge’s embarrassing removal of the 1000 square kilometres of islands dotting the proposed oil tanker route off the coast of British Columbia. Although Enbridge most certainly misinformed the public about the dangers of oil tanker traffic associated with the Northern Gateway Pipeline, the company was not held accountable to the public in doing so.

Advocates for an oil free coast, however, may find themselves in legal trouble if they aren’t careful to cite their sources when criticizing Enbridge.

The farmed fish industry is also legally allowed to advertise farmed salmon without citing scientific research on the negative health and environmental effects of farmed salmon production and consumption.

According to Gage, the overall problem with BC’s fair comment laws lies in the general imbalance within the legal system. Most essentially, critics of industry should be free to oppose industry without the fear of harsh reprisal.

“We can all press for laws that strike a better balance,” he says. “Quebec has banned lawsuits aimed at silencing public critics (known as SLAPP suits), while Australia has banned large companies from suing for defamation at all.”

“BC,” he adds, also “needs laws to protect free speech.”

Staniford, who has temporarily suspended activities on his blog, plans to take his case to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.