Defamation Trial, Former Senator Ed Lawson vs David Baines
posted on
Aug 28, 2010 10:45PM
Play the Spin Doc, Expect to Pay the Price. I don't think Baines will get much sympathy from the Silverado gang. Mr. Edward Lawson, you are in my prayers.GRIM 2010-08-27 11:06 PT - Street Wire Also Street Wire (C-CGS) CanWest Global Communications Corp by Mike Caswell The defamation case between former senator Edward Lawson and The Vancouver Sun's David Baines has been set down for trial by jury on Sept. 13, 2010. At the trial, Mr. Lawson will argue that a Vancouver Sun column unfairly linked him with Ed Carter and David Ward, two promoters tried for a stock bribery scam that took place in the mid-1980s. Mr. Baines and The Sun deny the allegations, and contend that the facts of the story were true. The case will be a rematch of sorts for two lawyers. Representing Mr. Lawson will be North Vancouver libel specialist Roger McConchie, and representing Mr. Baines will be media lawyer Rob Anderson. The two previously faced each other in a high-profile trial in 2005 after motivational speaker Tony Robbins sued The Sun for reporting that he had stolen the wife of a Langley man. After a 27-day trial, the judge ruled in favour of Mr. Robbins, but only awarded him $20,000 in damages, plus costs. Lawson's statement of claim Mr. Lawson's case began on June 19, 2008, when he filed a statement of claim in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against Mr. Baines, Canwest Publishing Inc. and four other Sun employees. The suit identified Mr. Lawson as a retired senator (he was Canada's longest serving senator, at 34 years) and the former Canadian director of the Teamsters union. The story that Mr. Lawson complained of appeared in The Sun on March 12, 2008, when Mr. Lawson was a director of Arctic Oil & Gas Corp., a pink sheets listing. The suit only quoted two portions of the story, which briefly described Mr. Lawson's past involvement with the Teamsters union and with Mr. Carter and Mr. Ward. "In June 1988, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit ... alleging that the Teamsters Union and the union's entire executive board (including Lawson), plus 26 purported mob figures, had hijacked the union from its members. "Several months later, the suit was dropped after union executives signed a settlement agreeing to union reform." The story then turned to Mr. Carter and Mr. Ward. "Lawson also suffered the embarrassment of being identified as a close associate of Ed Carter, who along with partner David Ward was caught in a huge stock bribery scam in the mid-1980s. "Evidence at the criminal trial of Carter and Ward was that the two promoters gave Lawson shares of their rigged companies, and Lawson flew them, often free of charge, on the Teamsters executive jet he had at his disposal." According to the suit, the article meant that Mr. Lawson is corrupt and he used his position at the Teamsters union for personal gain by providing Mr. Carter and Mr. Ward with free travel in exchange for shares in manipulated companies. Mr. Lawson claimed that story was untrue, and its purpose was to expose him to hatred, ridicule and contempt. He said that Mr. Baines wrote the story knowing that the facts were untrue or, alternatively, not caring whether they were true. In the wake of the column, his reputation suffered enough that the court should award him a substantial amount of money, Mr. Lawson contended. "The Defendants ... have been guilty of reprehensible, insulting, high-handed, spiteful, malicious and oppressive conduct," his suit read. He further noted that Mr. Baines had not published a retraction or an apology. Mr. Lawson seeks general, aggravated, exemplary and special damages. He is also asking for an injunction preventing further publication of the article, and removing it from any electronic database. In addition to Mr. Baines, the defendants are: Hugh Dawson, The Sun's business editor; Patricia Graham, The Sun's editor-in-chief; Kirk LaPointe, The Sun's managing editor; and Kevin Bent, The Sun's president. Statement of defence Mr. Baines and his co-defendants, in a statement of defence filed on July 21, 2008, claimed the story was true or protected by privilege. They cited testimony from the criminal trial of Mr. Ward and Mr. Carter. The statement of defence also contained a copy of the column in full. The story was about Arctic Oil & Gas, a pink sheets listing that claimed to have an interest in $1-trillion worth of petroleum rights in the Arctic. Mr. Baines found it curious that a former Canadian senator, Mr. Lawson, was a director of the company, given that it had assets of just $27,172 and traded for just eight cents. Mr. Baines also obtained quotes from a UBC professor of international law, Michael Byers, who said it was unlikely that Arctic Oil & Gas would be able to assert any claim for petroleum rights in the Arctic. Several countries were vying for control of the area, and reputable oil companies would have to deal with national governments. Any solution would require the United Nations to decide who owns what. In short, "hell would have to freeze over before Arctic Oil & Gas could ever tap into that trillion-dollar treasure chest," the story stated. According to the statement of defence, the portions of the story that described Mr. Lawson were based on factual information. These included the parts that said he was a close associate of Mr. Carter and Mr. Ward and that he gave them free trips on a Teamsters executive jet. Alternatively, they are protected by a defence called privilege, because they were a fair report of court proceedings, being the criminal trial of Mr. Carter and Mr. Ward, the defence stated. Mr. Baines said he was summarizing the testimony of Mr. Ward's executive assistant. Mr. Baines denied that he published his column for the predominant purpose of harming Mr. Lawson's reputation, or that he acted with malice. If any part of the column was untrue, Mr. Lawson failed to co-operate with The Sun's efforts to further investigate the story with a view to publishing a full apology, if one were warranted, the defence stated. Mr. Baines and the other defendants asked that the case be dismissed, with costs.