I Write Possible Legal Defences Rebel News Might Have

They're getting sued by Boucher. Objection!

Note: The poll results for the next topic in the “Want Change? I Tell You How” article are still pending, so in the interim I’ve published this article I think is important for Rebel News.

Disclaimer: This does not constitute legal advice. Seek legal advice from a legal professional.

Rebel News raised the alarm that they are being sued by Trudeau’s right-hand man Jean-Christophe Boucher. Rebel News are based in Ontario (if their PO Box address is to be believed), and Boucher is based in Alberta.

Anti-SLAPP

Ontario has an anti-SLAPP law. SLAPP stands for ‘Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation’, and refers to abuse of defamation law in thinly veiled attempt at engaging ‘strategic lawsuits’ that work ‘against public participation’ (read: tries to control the narrative).

Inversely, Alberta does not have an anti-SLAPP law. So for this defence to apply Rebel News would need to argue their region has jurisdiction instead of Boucher’s. For Ontario, the relevant bill is Bill 52, Protection of Public Participation Act, 2015.

Anti-SLAPP largely applies to ‘matters of public interest’, and given this relates to absurd COVID-19 policies, it is indeed a matter of public interest.

Time Limits

According to Alberta defamation law, when it comes to a newspaper publication (which I am assuming Rebel News is), notice must be served within three months, quoting:

13(1) No action lies unless the plaintiff has, within 3 months after the publication of the defamatory matter has come to the plaintiff’s notice or knowledge, given to the defendant, in the case of a daily newspaper, 7, and in the case of any other newspaper or when the defamatory matter was broadcast, 14 days’ notice in writing of the plaintiff’s intention to bring an action, specifying the defamatory
matter complained of.

The key line is: “[…] within 3 months after the publication of the defamatory matter […]”.

Quoting the notice of lawsuit letter, it is dated 8th September 2022:

However, the letter reports the incident - which it is filing under Section 13(1), above - occurred in June 9th 2022:

What’s interesting is this is on the cusp of three months (2 months, 30 days). It’s curious Boucher waited until the absolute last minute, and looks to be on the very edge of the 3 month mark, which may very well invalidate the claim.

However, the wording of Section 13(1) is curious because it says 7 days (for daily newspapers) and 14 days (for other newspapers) notice needs to be given of the lawsuit. I suspect it must be 7 to 14 days before 3 months are up.

However, wording and timing is vague enough a judge would have to decide if this merits a dismissal. Rebel News could file for early dismissal on grounds that it hit the 3 month limit, and notice of the lawsuit was not the minimum 7 days before the 3 month limit.

Of course, I am assuming this is the first letter Rebel News received, they may have received priors.

Appeal To Change Jurisdiction

Returning to the Anti-SLAPP point raised above, Section 14(1) alternates and says the case could be either tried in the newspapers’ jurisdiction, or that of the plaintiff, on the grounds of whichever best serves justice:

It would be very strong for Rebel News to argue they were operating under the aspects of Anti-SLAPP - hence their jurisdiction choice of Ontario - and thus their justice would be denied if they were forced into another jurisdiction. Ontario still has defamation laws so it wouldn’t prejudice the plaintiff their case. Not hearing it in Ontario would prejudice the defendant theirs, though.

Arguing The Words Were Not Defamatory

Part of the Alberta law notes that:

[…] that the impugned words were defamatory […]

Words have to ‘lower the reputational standing’ of the person in question to a “right-standing” person. Basically, the public have to believe it.

Let us examine each quotation from Boucher’s letter in turn:

Jean-Christophe Boucher is a raging Trudeau Liberal, on Trudeau's payroll — and
Big Pharma's payroll too.

The word ‘raging’ isn’t defamatory because people become enraged. Nor is ‘Trudeau Liberal’ (otherwise the Liberal party in Canada is walking defamation), nor is ‘on Trudeau’s payroll’ - given lots of people are on Trudeau’s payroll.

The only line that might apply is “Big Pharma’s payroll”, but a lot of people are on “Big Pharma’s payroll”. Assuming Rebel News have seen evidence of Boucher receiving money from a pharmaceutical company, this would not likely be defamatory either.

He's done this same make-believe, junk science, hocus-pocus before, in the
service of his Vaccine paymasters.

Seems to be satire, it makes no specific references. Assuming Rebel News give one example of ‘junk science’ (as well as payroll evidence), would likely succeed with defence in truth.

So yeah, he's a bit of a partisan for hire — if you pay him enough money, he'll
make a rainbow diagram, with the names of people he hates in it

Last half seems like absurd satire. A ‘right-standing person’ likely view it as absurdity, not defamation. ‘Partisan for hire’ is meaningless. Anyone who is political is a partisan. What is a “partisan for hire” anyway? Aren’t all partisans for hire? I don’t know of any political partisans who work for free.

There's no science here. It's McCarthyism, with an ink-jet printer. There's no
methodology. There's no academic rigour.

Fails defamation test, needs to be aimed at a named person, not a methodology. Literally says “there’s no methodology”, suggesting criticism aimed at methodology. Defamation is only against reputation of a person, not criticisms of process.

This fake professor is trying to dress up his own partisan bigotry as some sort of
science. But scratch the surface, and you'll find he's nothing more than a Trudeau
shill

Probably the only portion that touches anything close to defamation.

Specifically the line “fake professor”. As Boucher is a qualified professor, the statement is factually false - assuming quotes are accurate (see below). Could be rectified by Rebel News publishing a retraction/correction/apology.

I’m not sure this meets standard of defamation, as it has to be one that meaningfully harms the reputation of the person, not merely false.

“Partisan bigotry”, an undefined term, likely to fail defamation test. It seems like a subjective phrase. “Trudeau shill” doesn’t seem defamatory: ‘someone who advocates Trudeau’. Saying he advocates Trudeau isn’t defamatory, unless working for Trudeau is offensive?

And what does he want to do with people he disagrees with? He wants to shut us
down. What a disgrace — a professor at a university hates free speech and debate
so much that he literally wants to silence and shut us down. That's not a professor.
That's a Liberal party mole at the U of C.

Ironically selected quote’s first half is self-evidentally true - the defamation lawsuit by Boucher trying to shut down speech. Means this quote falls into the ‘defence in truth’ territory.

Doesn’t apply to “Liberal party mole at the U of C” another subjective, satire-seeming commentary, of which only “mole” is vaguely negative. Doesn’t seem defamatory.

The letter remarks:

Dr. Boucher is referred to as an "ignorant coward" at 32:43 of the audio segment,
and an "ignoramus" at 32:50 of the audio segment

However, these terms rarely pass defamation, and seems like scraping the barrel. This is basically a complaint of ‘they called us an idiot’.

“Quotes” Are Material Misrepresentations Of Original Source Material

Probably the biggest flaw in the lawsuit.

Boucher’s lawyers have engaged in material misrepresentations of quotes from the audio recording. Here is one example, one of the quotes from their letter, it says:

And what does he want to do with people he disagrees with? He wants to shut us down. What a disgrace — a professor at a university hates free speech and debate so much that he literally wants to silence and shut us down. That's not a professor. That's a Liberal party mole at the U of C.

However, in the original audio recording, timestamp 32:01 onwards, the audio recording actually says:

And what does he want to do with the people he hates? The people he disagrees with? He doesn’t want to debate us. He wants to shut us down. What a disgrace. The University of Calgary Professor, hates free speech, and hates debate, so much, that he literally wants to silence and shut us down. That is not a professor, that is a Trudeau mole, of the University of Calgary.

Material misrepresentation of statements is alarming, especially when it comes to defamation where wording of statements is crucial to determining context. Trudeau mole is vastly different from Liberal party mole, because it implies his behaviours are specifically pro-Trudeau as opposed to just some generalised pro-Liberal behaviours.

The Legal Letter Makes Crucial Omissions

Unsurprisingly, not only are their material misrepresentations, but there are also crucial omissions. Quoting the letter again:

Dr. Boucher is referred to as an "ignorant coward" at 32:43 of the audio segment,
and an "ignoramus" at 32:50 of the audio segment

What it omits is the entire context of that quote, which from 32:30 of the audio recording onwards says (bold emphasis for selected quotes above added):

[…] I’ll read it in his own words: “WHEN WILL WE SHUT DOWN THE REBEL, FOR SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION, THIS SHOULD BE A LAWSUIT FOR UNDERMINING PUBLIC SAFETY.” Bring it. Bring it you ignorant coward. Like I said, 25 years ago, people who disagreed with each other were debating each other. I’ll debate this ignoramus any day.

These omissions are crucial because it shows Boucher had instigated the event, aiming to set up flimsy grounds for a lawsuit pre-emptively (which is great grounds for an anti-SLAPP appeal), and the dubious omissions doesn’t qualify the remarks which are clearly taken out of context, and in context would constitute fair comment.

Not that the terms were defamatory to begin with, it does show a questionable trend on part of the legal tactics used.

Rebel News Should Likely Counter Sue In The Same Trial

It seems like Boucher’s own remarks of insisting the Rebel is ‘spreading false information’ and ‘undermining public safety’ - without evidence of claim - would be defamatory and harmful to their reputation, especially when the accusation of public harm has the weight of a University Professor behind it calling for their censorship, inciting retaliation, and would likely constitute defamation.

This provides an interesting double-edged sword, because if the case moves to Ontario, both parties will have access to anti-SLAPP, but if it’s handled in Alberta, neither will have access.

Material misrepresentation of Rebel News’ claims in quotes is in, and of itself, also defamatory, because essentially they’re attempts to misrepresent their claims - not only to the court - but also to the public, given such submissions will become public record, and are not factually accurate.

It’ll be interesting to see if Rebel News uses any of these approaches. But remember folks, this isn’t legal advice and I’m not a lawyer, I have no idea what I’m talking about and everything here is ill-advised satire. Always speak with a legal professional.

Daily Beagle’s is still a long way off from becoming financially viable, consider becoming a paying subscriber today!

Share this article and encourage others to subscribe!

Legal eagle? Let me know your views down in the comments!