Whipped: An Arthur Beauchamp Novel(51)
Meanwhile, the minority Conservative government is expected to fall when Parliament resumes in September, 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.