It will take some time to read and digest this voluminous judgment. But I must say, similar to the test for summary judgment (whether it’s plain and obvious that a claim cannot stand and shouldn’t go to trial), if you find yourself dispatching 400+ paragraphs as to why the claim isn’t a bad faith strategic ploy, then perhaps you’ve gone too far in the analysis. Surely it’s better to err on the side of letting claims proceed?
It seems odd to me that Galloway’s dismissed claims have been finally adjudicated on a pure textual analysis, but the ones that remain must go through a further layer of judicial scrutiny on the merits. Isn’t the issue simply whether the claim is intended to create mischief as opposed to being a bone fide claim for damages? This should have been much quicker.
Given that this crew had driven Galloway near suicide, I'm not surprised he was late filing against the two who escaped trial on that technicality. I'm crossing fingers for an appeal in those two cases. Their antics and those of their enablers have disgraced CanLit.
Well, that was a fascinating read. My understanding of defamation litigation has considerably improved in reading the judgement. So, Annabel Lyon gets off the hook, simply because of the Limitation Act. In any case, I hope that in reading the judgement, she realizes that she made an incredible error in believing A.B.'s narrative. If Annabel had any integrity, she would apologize to Steven Galloway after the whole thing is over. The dismissal of proceeding against Alicia Elliott's seems clear on the merits. As for the rest, I guess Galloway will now see them again in court. This is if they don't seek to settle out-of-court, which their lawyers may well be advising them to do. I look forward to your breakdown and analysis of this judgement.
"What A.B. told Professor Maillard and Professor Lyon about her contact with the CBC was a fiction. However, both Professor Maillard and Professor Lyon again asked no questions, and the CBC Document was presented at the November Meeting as if it was a true statement of the facts."
#2 "Neither Professor Maillard nor Professor Lyon contacted Mr. Galloway to warn him about what was going on, or to get his side of events. Indeed, based on Professor Lee’s notes of the November Meeting, Professor Maillard went out of his way in a phone call with Mr. Galloway to deceive him. Both Professor Maillard and Professor Lyon refused to answer Mr. Galloway’s phone calls."
Thank you for the update, Brad.
It’s a new genre for the defendants. It’s called the law. Glad to have this update.
It will take some time to read and digest this voluminous judgment. But I must say, similar to the test for summary judgment (whether it’s plain and obvious that a claim cannot stand and shouldn’t go to trial), if you find yourself dispatching 400+ paragraphs as to why the claim isn’t a bad faith strategic ploy, then perhaps you’ve gone too far in the analysis. Surely it’s better to err on the side of letting claims proceed?
It seems odd to me that Galloway’s dismissed claims have been finally adjudicated on a pure textual analysis, but the ones that remain must go through a further layer of judicial scrutiny on the merits. Isn’t the issue simply whether the claim is intended to create mischief as opposed to being a bone fide claim for damages? This should have been much quicker.
Given that this crew had driven Galloway near suicide, I'm not surprised he was late filing against the two who escaped trial on that technicality. I'm crossing fingers for an appeal in those two cases. Their antics and those of their enablers have disgraced CanLit.
I am very glad to read this judgement. I hope Mr. Galloway finally gets justice at trial and that this case forever changes defamation law in Canada.
Madam Justice Adair seems to have written a bullet proof assessment which cannot be appealed. So now we can get as close to the truth as is possible.
Well, that was a fascinating read. My understanding of defamation litigation has considerably improved in reading the judgement. So, Annabel Lyon gets off the hook, simply because of the Limitation Act. In any case, I hope that in reading the judgement, she realizes that she made an incredible error in believing A.B.'s narrative. If Annabel had any integrity, she would apologize to Steven Galloway after the whole thing is over. The dismissal of proceeding against Alicia Elliott's seems clear on the merits. As for the rest, I guess Galloway will now see them again in court. This is if they don't seek to settle out-of-court, which their lawyers may well be advising them to do. I look forward to your breakdown and analysis of this judgement.
Here are a few of my picks:
#1
"What A.B. told Professor Maillard and Professor Lyon about her contact with the CBC was a fiction. However, both Professor Maillard and Professor Lyon again asked no questions, and the CBC Document was presented at the November Meeting as if it was a true statement of the facts."
#2 "Neither Professor Maillard nor Professor Lyon contacted Mr. Galloway to warn him about what was going on, or to get his side of events. Indeed, based on Professor Lee’s notes of the November Meeting, Professor Maillard went out of his way in a phone call with Mr. Galloway to deceive him. Both Professor Maillard and Professor Lyon refused to answer Mr. Galloway’s phone calls."