“In less grievous circumstances I might allow some time for Ms. Blake to frame her apology, but I am instructed that no apology can undo the damage done by her irresponsible and callous comments. As I speak, lawyers in Calgary are filing a writ and statement of claim naming her as defendant in a suit for five million dollars plus forty-five million in aggravated and punitive damages. That is all I have to say. No questions.”
But of course there was a clamour of questions. They went unanswered. Farquist’s political aide took the mike to “respectfully” caution the press that an injunction was being sought to restrain further publication of the defamatory words, but he could barely be heard. Farquist made for the exit, tripped slightly over a power cord, flapped his arms out like a penguin to regain his balance, then disappeared.
Jennie turned the TV off, and there was silence until Sierra said, “Not very nimble of foot, is he?”
Maybe it was that comment, maybe the preposterous claim in damages, but Margaret released an unladylike snort of laughter.
“Very well,” Sierra said, “we have our work cut out for us.”
PART TWO
THE CLIPPINGS FILE
Ottawa Citizen, Thursday, June 27
OTTAWA — A political earthquake is shaking the staid corridors of Parliament Hill over alleged incendiary comments by Green Party leader Margaret Blake about Environment Minister Emil Farquist, who has launched a slander action against her for $50 million.
The claim is for $5 million in general damages, $25 million in aggravated damages, and $20 million in punitive damages. If upheld, the award would be the largest by far in the history of Canadian defamation suits.
In announcing his court action on Wednesday — at a five-minute press conference in the National Press Theatre that set Parliamentary records for brevity — Farquist appeared visibly outraged, and was unsparing in his condemnation of Ms. Blake. He described her alleged remarks, caught on tape, as irresponsible, scurrilous, and egregiously false. He said experts had identified Blake’s voice on that recording.
Although links to it have gone viral on social media, their further publication has been restrained by a Canada-wide injunction granted Wednesday by Justice A.J. O’Donnell of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. A hearing to determine if the injunction will stand is set for this Friday in Calgary.
Justice O’Donnell has granted standing at the hearing to major media outlets.
Ms. Blake is on a pre-campaign swing through Canada’s northern territories, and has not been available to the media. Green Party staff have referred inquiries to the law firm of Tragger, Inglis, Bullingham in Vancouver, which has indicated a statement will be forthcoming from senior trial counsel Arthur Beauchamp, QC, who is Ms. Blake’s husband.
The injunction also bars reporting the specifics of the alleged defamatory comments contained in the complainant’s five-page statement of claim. The Ottawa Citizen and Postmedia have announced they are joining other news agencies, publishers, and broadcast and visual media to oppose continuation of the injunction.
The controversial recording and the massive suit in damages loom darkly over the national political landscape, with the Liberal caucus under their untested new leader, Marcus Yates, planning to support an Opposition motion to bring down the minority Tory government early in the fall session, precipitating what may become one of this nation’s wildest election campaigns.
§
CBC News, Thursday, June 27, 4:05 p.m.
CALGARY — Lawyers for Green Party leader Margaret Blake arrived at the Calgary courthouse this afternoon to file a formal statement of defence to the slander action launched against her yesterday by Environment Minister Emil Farquist.
Copies of the document were not made available to the public or the media, pending a ruling expected tomorrow on whether a publication ban will be continued or stayed, but a spokesperson for Blake’s defence team said the team plans to meet the accusation of slander head-on, and will seek to prove that references to Farquist made in a sensational voice recording are founded on fact.
“We believe in the fundamental fairness of Canada’s justice system and shall defend this action with the weapons of truth,” said noted trial lawyer Arthur Ramsgate Beauchamp upon his arrival this afternoon at the Calgary airport.
He said he did not blame Farquist for “seeking home-field advantage” by filing his suit in his own city, and complimented Calgary for being “modern and alive and renowned for its generous and fair-minded citizenry.” He declined to discuss the case further, but when asked if he felt comfortable representing his wife, he joked that she had often found their marriage to be a trial.
Farquist will be bringing on board another of Canada’s top litigators, George Cowper Jr., who is widely regarded as the go-to counsel for defamation actions. Cowper told the CBC he felt privileged to be asked to represent “such a forthright and well-respected political leader.”
Presiding over the injunction hearing tomorrow will be Madam Justice Rachel Cohon-Plaskett, Chief Justice of the Alberta Queen’s Bench and a former counsel of note herself.
Counsel for the CBC and other news media will be at the hearing to oppose the injunction.
§
The New York Times, Friday, June 28
by Holly Lorenson
OTTAWA — Canada’s reputation as a land of the bland and uneventful is in tatters this week following explosive allegations that a senior minister in the federal Conservative cabinet played sado-masochistic games with a Russian dominatrix.
Emil Farquist, the environment minister and parliamentary whip, has filed a $50 million slander suit against the leader of Canada’s Green Party, Margaret Blake, over a voice clip in which Ms. Blake, apparently unaware she was being recorded, spoke excitedly to her parliamentary aide, Pierette Litvak.
Farquist, in a brief statement on Wednesday, did not mince words in describing Ms. Blake’s comments as false, irresponsible, and callous. Only one day after his action was filed, counsel for Ms. Blake answered with a statement of defence conceding that she did make the impugned remarks and that they were true “in every word and particular.”
According to Canadian lawyers, the $50 million claim is at least ten times higher than any previous judgment for defamation in Canada.
This is the conversation that has our northern neighbours all atwitter:
Ms. Blake: “Emil Farquist. The sanctimonious prick, he’s into S and M.”
Ms. Litvak: “S and M. I got it. It’s a metaphor. As in Sour and Malicious, right?”
Ms. Blake: “Wrong. Spank me, Mother, I’ve been a bad boy. Weekends with a Russian dominatrix. Svetlana something. Farquist likes giving her pony rides while she swats his ass with a riding whip.”
Ms. Litvak: “Freak out!”
A cautionary female voice then interrupted: “Hey, you guys, be careful.”
It is not clear when or where this inflammatory exchange occurred, and the dominatrix referred to as Svetlana remains a mystery woman. Journalists have been scouring public records in an effort to locate her, but to little avail. A cursory internet search reveals several hundred Svetlanas in Ontario and Quebec alone.
It is hoped details will emerge during a hearing set for today in Calgary, where the slander suit was filed.
The hearing will determine whether the Canadian media — or the Canadian public — will be permanently banned from publishing or repeating that brief to-and-fro, an embargo that would raise eyebrows in the U.S., where First Amendment rights remain paramount.
There is a history of fierce friction between Ms. Blake and Mr. Farquist, whom she has dubbed the “Minister of Environmental Destruction” because of his lukewarm approach to climate change and his support for the continued exploitation of Alberta’s controversial oil sands.
Meanwhile, the minority Conservative government is expected to fall when Parliament resumes in Sept
ember, with four opposition parties aligned to vote no-confidence in the government, a move bound to precipitate a heated election campaign.
§
National Post, Saturday, June 29
by Ivor Johnson, columnist
CALGARY — The opening round in the punch-up between two combatants who are arguably the most colourful and volatile of a mostly monochromatic herd of MPs took place on Friday in Room 1503 of the Calgary Courts Centre. The hearing lacked a little in suspense.
Right from the opening bell it was clear that this was no contest, when the referee, Chief Justice Rachel Cohon-Plaskett, began throwing her own knockout punches.
Details of the event and the voice clip that prompted Emil Farquist’s $50 million slander claim against Margaret Blake appear elsewhere in this journal, but I had a ringside seat, close enough to see the sweat on the brows of counsel and to hear their muffled oaths.
Many leading lights of the bar were there, representing the Post and other news outlets, all eager to get their licks in, to storm the fortress of censorship. I had read their briefs: the right of the public to know, justice must not merely be done but seen, secret trials are a hallmark of totalitarian states. Strongly worded stuff, even stirring, but little of this was voiced.
Emil Farquist’s smooth and erudite counsel, George Cowper Jr., was only ten minutes into his submission when Chief Justice Cohon-Plaskett asked, “Are you really serious, Mr. Cowper?”
He had little option but to say yes. To give him credit, he ducked and danced, showed impressive footwork. Should the injunction fail, he said, “a sterling reputation already sullied by a wild and unsubstantiated accusation would be exposed to an almost exponential barrage of repeated slurs.”
Cohon-Plaskett referred him to an affidavit filed by the media group which estimated the alleged slurs had attracted 3.5 million hits to date on the internet. “If that’s not exponential, I don’t know what is,” she said.
It went without saying (though she said it anyway) that the injunction was ineffective against people who post on the internet, and not lifting it would cause the mainstream media a massive disadvantage.
However, she added, with a glance at defending counsel A.R. Beauchamp, quashing the injunction may encourage unrestrained public debate about the alleged slander and expose Ms. Blake “to the prospect of substantially increased damages should she not ultimately prevail in court.”
Counsel for the various news organizations — there were twelve of them, all primed for battle — looked disappointed when the judge said she didn’t need to hear from them. She then asked Mr. Beauchamp if he had anything to add. He did not. He hadn’t thrown a punch all day.
But this was only round one.
§
The Globe and Mail Op-Ed, Tuesday, July 2
BY M.R. Mathews, QC, LLD.
OTTAWA — Lost amid the sensation and political turmoil of Farquist v. Blake, or what is known in some circles as the “Freak out!” case, is the more subtle interplay of the strategies likely to be employed by two opposing counsel of stellar reputation and contrasting backgrounds.
Representing the plaintiff is George Cowper Jr., QC, of Cowper Linquist, a Toronto boutique firm that specializes in defamation law, a field in which Mr. Cowper has won several notable victories, most recently in pursuing the claim of slander by Bishop Augustine O’Meara, involving allegations of pederasty, and defending muckraking author J.R. Haskett’s bestseller, Scum.
Arthur Ramsgate Beauchamp, QC, of the national firm of Tragger, Inglis, Bullingham, is the husband of defendant Margaret Blake, and has caused a stir among his colleagues by offending an unwritten rule of legal practice against acting for a close family member. Perhaps the top gun among Canadian criminal lawyers, Beauchamp has never taken on a defamation case, but he is a fierce defender and brilliant cross-examiner.
The venue of the lawsuit is also not without controversy, the plaintiff having chosen his hometown of Calgary, a move that many observers consider a too-obvious attempt to give him an edge but also raising the question of whether he lacked the confidence to sue in a more neutral territory.
The claim for $50 million seems extravagant if not exorbitant, a figure unsurpassed in the annals of Canadian defamation law. A $3 million jury award against an airline for firing a pilot falsely accused of drinking alcohol before a flight remains the largest on record, followed by a $1.6 million judgment in favour of a lawyer defamed by the Church of Scientology. Minister Farquist’s massive claim is likely a rhetorical gesture, but an award in the millions may well be justified.
Mr. Beauchamp’s gambit of responding to the plaintiff’s writ and statement of claim with such unprecedented speed — one calendar day — was clearly intended as a bravura show of confidence. However the plea of justification, or truth, that is central to Mr. Beauchamp’s pleadings may be enormously risky, exposing Ms. Blake to a judgment in damages that could bankrupt her and drive her from politics.
The safer route might have been to plead that her comments were made in jest, or that having been intended for the ears only of her parliamentary aide they were broadcast unintentionally and therefore protected under the defence of qualified privilege. That defence, however, is defeated when the words, as here, resound with apparent malice.
An option that might substantially moderate an award in damages would be a quick and unreserved apology, but the doors to forgiveness have clearly been shut and barricaded.
It remains to be seen whether either party will seek a trial by jury as opposed to judge alone. I suspect the latter is the more likely choice. Chief Justice Rachel Cohon-Plaskett will preside in any event. While Mr. Farquist’s legal team may be feeling bruised by her peremptory dismissal of the effort to restrain further publication of the alleged slander, they will be aware that she was not only a Conservative appointment but a candidate for that party, albeit a losing one, in a federal election nearly a decade ago.
Still, she is said to have been allied more closely with the party’s progressive wing — the so-called Red Tories — than with its current hardline leadership. So Mr. Beauchamp may well opt for the relative safety of a bright, tough-minded, no-nonsense former defence counsel than risk a jury pulled from constituents of Mr. Farquist, who won his seat in a landslide.
There will be no rush to judgment. The trial is unlikely to take place for at least a year, but expect much sparring, in court and out, as the parties gird for a final showdown.
At the least, the trial and the anticipation around it will do much to divert Albertans from the moribund state of the province’s economy.
§
Calgary Herald, Friday, July 5
CALGARY — Nearly all proceeds from Emil Farquist’s $50 million defamation suit against Green leader Margaret Blake will be donated to the Alberta Sick Children’s Hospital Foundation, it was announced on Wednesday.
The promise was made by Jonas Hawkes, chief political aide to Environment Minister Farquist, at an impromptu press conference during the annual “Across the Border” ceremony honouring America’s Independence Day at the Calgary Stampede grounds. He said “every cent” of the $45 million claim for aggravated and punitive damages would be earmarked for the hospital fund. The announcement was greeted with cheers.
Hawkes met with reporters following a flag-raising ceremony and the introduction of prominent politicians from Canada and the U.S., including Farquist, who received an ovation that was notably louder and more sustained than that bestowed on Alberta’s popular new premier. Indeed, the entire event evolved into a tribute for the minister, who worked the crowd with back-slapping bonhomie. However, he refused to answer questions relating to the controversial slander action.
When asked, Hawkes denied any effort to sway a Calgary jury was intended. And he took issue with a suggestion that the idea of a charitable gift was prompted by criticism — particularly in legal circles — over the lavish cla
im for $50 million.
He took umbrage when asked whether Farquist’s legal fees were being paid by the federal government, saying that any discussion about fees was “inappropriate.”
Ms. Blake, who has returned to her home and her Vancouver Island constituency, was not available for comment, but her lawyer — and husband — Arthur Beauchamp, said, with apparent wryness, “Very generous of him.”
§
Fit to Be Tied (Online Newsletter of the Canadian BDSM Society), Monday, July 8
by the editor
Are we having fun yet? Your faithful editor certainly is, as all eyes in the BDSM community are riveted on the magnificent rumpus over the claims of fun and games engaged in (allegedly, of course) by political top dog Emil Farquist, who holds the delightful title of Chief Conservative Whip. (Or is he, as reputed whipee, the bottom dog?)
The controversy certainly has its upside, in terms of giving more public awareness and legitimacy to the playful, healthy, stress-relieving games our society was formed to defend.
But we are disappointed that lawyers for Margaret Blake (the Green Dominatrix, as we like to call her) haven’t raised a defence that should have been staring at them in the face. Whether or not her lovely little tale was true (pony rides! Haven’t we all loved them since we were toddlers?), is it defamatory?
That implies BDSM activities are shameful, when there is ample evidence that they have been powerfully therapeutic for many who have gone on to lead successful lives through channelling anger, guilt, and shame into a form of theatre. Sexual play with a frisson of danger, but never harm — a per-session accident rate of 2 percent.
As all readers of this newsletter know, BDSM is practised by thousands of respectable citizens. We count in our ranks bankers and accountants, business leaders, artists, professors. Many of us condemned by prejudice to remain closeted.
Whipped Page 16