Jump to content

      













Photo

Sonia Furstenau, Green Party MLA for Cowichan, being sued


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 5,115 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 01 October 2017 - 08:57 AM

http://www.timescolo...ents-1.23052491

 

 

Green Party MLA Sonia Furstenau is being sued for defamation for comments she allegedly made during a rally against a contaminated soil dump. 

Michael Kelly and Martin Block, the president and vice-president of Cobble Hill Holdings, filed the suit in B.C. Supreme Court on Thursday. Cobble Hill Holdings is the owner of a Shawnigan Lake quarry used as a landfill for contaminated soil.

The allegations have not been proven in court.

The suit alleges that Furstenau “falsely and maliciously spoke” about Kelly and Block during a rally on the legislature lawns in front of hundreds, on or around March 15, 2015.

 

She has already pulled the transcript of her remarks from that date from her blog page. Would be interesting to see what it was she said that these guys are gunning for her now.



#2 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,474 posts

Posted 01 October 2017 - 12:14 PM

I don’t think are gunning for her. They know that now that she is an MLA the Government is good for a sweet six figure pay cheque. If anyone cared what she said then they would have sued her 2 years ago.

#3 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 49,282 posts

Posted 01 October 2017 - 05:02 PM

Hmmm. Then why delete the content from her website?

Could a legal proceeding of this nature force the MLA to step down, effectively leading to a by-election?

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#4 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,474 posts

Posted 01 October 2017 - 05:08 PM

The content was removed to limit damages. If a politician did something stupid which harmed the interests of their electorate and cost them a needless expense then sure they should step down. Any bets whether that is going to happen?

#5 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 01 October 2017 - 05:15 PM

What she says before she is elected, we are still on the hook for any damages awarded?
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#6 On the Level

On the Level
  • Member
  • 1,313 posts

Posted 01 October 2017 - 09:30 PM

Sounds risky.  I wonder how hard they will go after Shawnigan Lake quarry now?  Cobble Hill Holdings might win the law suit only to have more focus and testing on the quarry.    If that goes badly, it could be more damaging than what they face now.  Where would all that soil go and who would pay for it?



#7 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 5,115 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 02 October 2017 - 06:09 AM

Sounds risky.  I wonder how hard they will go after Shawnigan Lake quarry now?  Cobble Hill Holdings might win the law suit only to have more focus and testing on the quarry.    If that goes badly, it could be more damaging than what they face now.  Where would all that soil go and who would pay for it?

 

I dont think the lawsuit noted here will get their license back. Its going after her for comments she made at a rally that they claim were untrue and affected their reputation and credit. 

 

 

Hmmm. Then why delete the content from her website?

Could a legal proceeding of this nature force the MLA to step down, effectively leading to a by-election?

 

No I dont think so unless it shows her comments had an effect on her being elected and the litigants are successful, then its a different ballgame.

 

I don’t think are gunning for her. They know that now that she is an MLA the Government is good for a sweet six figure pay cheque. If anyone cared what she said then they would have sued her 2 years ago.

 

Government (taxpayer) shouldnt be responsible for any payout as she made these comments prior to being an MLA, this is different than when Horgan mad those smug comments

 

Its up to the litigants to prove their case, that they were harmed etc which is a lot harder to do


Edited by rjag, 02 October 2017 - 06:11 AM.


#8 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 02 October 2017 - 06:21 AM

Where would all that soil go and who would pay for it?

 

The taxpayers, again.  We paid to dump it there (a lot of it came from the Esquimalt graving dock) and we'll pay to dig it back up and ship it somewhere else.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#9 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 9,815 posts

Posted 02 October 2017 - 06:47 AM

Are her deleted comments cached anywhere? I can't judge without knowing what was said that day but it is a fact that the landfill owners did some bad things. And Furstenau is well informed on the issue and seems unlikely to say something that couldn't be backed up. I don't see how slander can be proven. The bar is really high.

"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#10 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 10,480 posts

Posted 02 October 2017 - 07:13 AM

^ Here is her site on "wayback machine" a cached version. from February.

 

https://web.archive....ts-a-new-owner/

 

If you load this page in your browser and load her current page in another browser page you can bounce back and forth and see what has been removed in the current version.

 

I have linked to her "Lot 21" comments where she talks about Martin Block and Michael Kelly loosing lot 21 ( next to the landfill site) because they did not pay their property taxes. 

 

Here is her current web page version.where the above post appears to have been removed.

 

https://soniafursten...hawnigan-water/


  • Mike K. and Rob Randall like this

#11 lanforod

lanforod
  • Member
  • 7,138 posts
  • LocationSaanich

Posted 02 October 2017 - 07:23 AM

I don't see anything wrong with that post on Lot 21. It seemed to only post factual information.

Could the part they're suing over be in the slides that we can't see at the bottom?



#12 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 5,115 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 02 October 2017 - 07:26 AM

I believe the claim focuses on comments made at a public rally at the Leg. in March 2015 and she posted a transcript of her speech on her blog 



#13 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,474 posts

Posted 02 October 2017 - 07:30 AM

Anyone who knows Mike Kelly will tell you that he doesn't give up. Whether he has any claim or not is irrelevant. I am assuming that his belief is that the Greens/NDP will settle this rather than having one of their key members dragged through the mud. 



#14 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 02 October 2017 - 07:38 AM

Oh I know Mike Kelly alright...
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#15 Apoplectic Skeptic

Apoplectic Skeptic
  • Member
  • 4 posts

Posted 03 October 2017 - 12:36 PM

I would imagine she will want to dispense with this as quietly and quickly as possible. Despite her statement of "without merit," I suspect the transcript was pulled down after consulting with counsel and being informed there was some exposure there. The end does not justify the means where it comes to statements of rhetoric versus statements of fact in the furtherance of an agenda. I would think her biggest fear would be the pulling back of the veil of secrecy in the discovery process as any emails and transcripts of in-camera board sessions where the aggrieved are mentioned may be within the scope of their case. While the inner workings would be fascinating to behold, I expect -- like many other pending scandals -- this will be quietly settled with a non-disclosure and will not see the light of day.

 

With party finance being a hot button topic, I would be curious to see if her legal fees are to be paid by the proceeds Green Party contributions which may be improper as her alleged actions occurred well prior to being elected as an MLA.

 

I await round 2.



#16 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 49,282 posts

Posted 01 October 2018 - 10:17 PM

Are there any updates regarding this lawsuit?

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#17 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,474 posts

Posted 02 October 2018 - 06:46 AM

Are there any updates regarding this lawsuit?

Come back in 5 years!


  • Sparky likes this

#18 Bernard

Bernard
  • Member
  • 4,241 posts
  • LocationVictoria BC

Posted 05 October 2018 - 02:12 PM

Hmmm. Then why delete the content from her website?

Could a legal proceeding of this nature force the MLA to step down, effectively leading to a by-election?

So, she can get a judgement for damages against her but this does not disqualify her as an MLA.   Only through the force of public will could she be forced to resign.

 

As to the damages, everything is linked to the plaintiffs showing what monetary damage has been done to them.


  • Mike K. likes this

 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users