Wow ....

This might seem like a small cog in any wheel, but the implications are really quite large ... like, um ... maybe ... PRECEDENT?

I suppose it might come as quite a shock to most Canadians ... that THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE THIS RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Citizens free to criticize government, court rules
Ottawa-area township tried to sue resident who complained about volunteer fire services

Janice Tibbetts, The Ottawa Citizen

A judge has thrown out a unique lawsuit in which an Ottawa-area township attempted to sue one of its citizens for defamation for complaining about the shoddy performance of the volunteer fire department.

The suit was believed to be one of the first in Canada in which a government tried to sue a citizen for speaking out.

"To have an elected council being able to sue a taxpayer with the taxpayer's own money, it was quite incredible from the start," said Donald Page, a retired engineer.

Montague Township, about an hour southwest of Ottawa, was seeking $50,000 from Mr. Page for mounting "a campaign of wilful vilification" in an attempt to damage the reputations of the township, its reeve, council, senior fire services management and firefighters.

Mr. Page has been a thorn in the side of the township since January 2005, when he wrote the provincial fire marshal and chief coroner complaining about the fire department's performance in a pre-Christmas blaze that left a woman dead.

Judge Kenneth Pedlar, of the Ontario Superior Court, ruled on Tuesday that the lawsuit should not proceed because it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms' guarantee of freedom of expression.

"In a free and democratic system, every citizen must be guaranteed the right to freedom of expression about issues relating to a government as an absolute privilege, without threat of a civil action for defamation being initiated against them by that government," he wrote.

Mr. Page and his wife, Jean, were driving to town to go Christmas shopping in December 2004 when they spotted the fateful fire. The Pages rescued a dog from the blaze, but then left matters to volunteer firefighters who had arrived on the scene. However, Mr. Page said they were ill-equipped to enter a burning house and did not attempt to venture inside for about 20 minutes.

"We need assurances that our Montague firefighters will be required to undergo the training which, as we observed, they lack," Mr. Page wrote in his letter to the fire marshal and chief coroner.

"We also expect that the senior management of the Montague fire service will be held accountable for this lack of training."

Soon after, Mr. Page said he received a letter from the township's reeve threatening a defamation lawsuit unless he withdrew his letter.

Over the next few months, both sides refused to back down and Mr. Page wrote another letter, this time to Ontario Community Safety Minister Monte Kwinter, complaining of a "rogue fire department" and "extremely poor leadership both within the fire service and in the township council."

Mr. Page also wrote the local newspaper, the Smiths Falls Record News, saying that town officials were trying to bully him into silence.

The town filed the lawsuit last August. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which described the suit as a chilling attempt to muzzle free speech, lauded the decision for setting an important precedent.

"It's a decision that recognizes the fundamental importance in a democracy of citizens being able to criticize their government," said spokesman Josh Paterson.

Judge Pedlar, in his decision, said he was troubled by the prospect of a government being able to use taxpayers' money to fight a lawsuit against a citizen.

Mr. Page said he will now pursue the recovery of an estimated $25,000 in legal fees to defend himself.

For a defamation suit to succeed, a plaintiff must show an intent to damage a person's reputation. However, the fact a statement is true is a defence that has been established in Canadian courts.

The township unsuccessfully argued, in a December hearing, that permitting unrestrained defamation against elected bodies would discourage the best candidates from seeking office, particularly in small regions where most citizens know the town councillors.

My bold, as usual.

This does not trump the fact that Canadians have no constitutional property rights! a.k.a "what's yours is mine and what's yours is none of your business".