18 replies to this topic

[rjag]

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.

[spanky123]

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.

[Mike K.]

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?

[spanky123]

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?

[VicHockeyFan]

What she says before she is elected, we are still on the hook for any damages awarded?

[On the Level]

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?

[rjag]

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.

[VicHockeyFan]

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.

[Rob Randall]

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.

[Sparky]

^ 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/

[lanforod]

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?

[rjag]

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 

[spanky123]

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. 

[VicHockeyFan]

Oh I know Mike Kelly alright...

[Apoplectic Skeptic]

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.

[Mike K.]

Are there any updates regarding this lawsuit?

[spanky123]

Are there any updates regarding this lawsuit?

Come back in 5 years!

[Bernard]

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.]

No environmental assessment for a Bamberton quarry. From the province:

 

The proposed expansion of the Bamberton quarry near Mill Bay will undergo an enhanced review through the Mines Act permitting process, not an environmental assessment by the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office (EAO).

 

George Heyman, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, reviewed submissions received from the Saanich Inlet Protection Society, First Nations and the public during the EAO’s review of the request to designate the expansion as a reviewable project under the Environmental Assessment Act, along with the analysis by EAO officials. He also considered a previous 1996 Ministry of Environment report on cumulative effects on the Saanich Inlet.

Following the EAO’s review, Heyman participated in discussions with the ministries of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation (EMLI) and Water, Land and Resource Stewardship (WLRS) and the EAO to determine whether an enhanced permitting process conducted by EMLI in collaboration with the EAO, and a separate cumulative effects analysis within the Saanich Inlet by WLRS, could address the concerns raised by local residents and First Nations effectively, fairly and expeditiously.

As a result of discussions with the EAO and ministers, and respecting issues brought forward by the Saanich Inlet Protection Society, First Nations and the public during the EAO review, EMLI developed an enhanced permit review process for the project. The enhanced permit process will include ongoing consultation with the EAO, technical review by geotechnical, geoscience and reclamation specialists, and further engagement with First Nations and the public.

Heyman determined that an environmental assessment by the EAO will not be required for the project proposed by Malahat Investment Corporation. In making the decision, he highlighted that the concerns raised about risks to the sensitive and unique Saanich Inlet ecosystem will be addressed by the enhanced permit amendment review process, coupled with the cumulative effects analysis to be developed in consultation with First Nations and the EAO.

Heyman has recommended to the EMLI statutory decision-maker that if the quarry expansion is approved, annual reporting on environmental monitoring should be required, with review by an environmental review committee to ensure any mitigation measures imposed are effective, and to recommend permit amendments, if necessary. In addition, the minister recommended this ongoing monitoring include consideration of any findings from the cumulative-effects analysis.

The EAO determined that the renewal of a foreshore lease for a dock and a permit for a clean fill site on the property are not eligible for an environmental assessment because both have been in operation for many years. Heyman has recommended that the Ministry of Forests consult with the EAO to ensure all relevant issues, concerns and information gathered during the EAO’s review are considered when completing the review of the foreshore lease-renewal application.

The EAO heard from the Saanich Inlet Protection Society, First Nations, Malahat Investment Corporation, Cowichan Valley Regional District, other government agencies and the public during its review. This input informed a report for the minister that examined a wide range of considerations about whether or not the project should undergo an environmental assessment.

Tsartlip First Nation and Tsawout First Nation supported designating the project as reviewable, asserting that a full environmental assessment would better ensure their Douglas Treaty rights are protected. Malahat Nation, which owns Malahat Investment Corporation, did not support designating the project as reviewable.

To address the high level of public interest in the project, the EAO held a public-comment period, which was extended twice and ran from Jan. 17 to Feb. 21, 2023. The EAO received more than 500 comments. About 200 people attended an online public information session on Feb. 2, 2023.

 

The EAO’s review of the application to designate the Bamberton Quarry expansion as reviewable exceeded the 30-day timeline, and an extension of 237 days was granted.

Reviewable projects require an environmental assessment by the EAO, and an environmental assessment certificate, to be approved by the Province and to move forward to permitting decisions.