In what he calls “an epiphany,” Guelph blogger Bill Manderson admitted in court he now realizes he likely violated an injunction prohibiting him from publishing certain online material about two Wellington County officials.
“I’m not above admitting when I’m wrong,” Manderson said in Superior Court on Tuesday afternoon.
The 74-year-old retired engineer was responding to a motion filed by McCarthy Tetrault, the firm representing county councillor Brad Whitcombe and county Chief Administrative Officer Scott Wilson.
Lawyer Steven Tanner argued that about eight statements published by Manderson on smelly-welly.com violated the temporary injunction issued by Judge Cas Herold in February 2009.
Herold issued the order in response to a $2.4-million libel lawsuit filed against Manderson last year by Whitcombe and Wilson in connection with allegedly libelous statements made by Manderson on his website.
Recently Wilson and Whitcombe filed an amended statement of claim seeking just $3 in damages as well as a permanent injunction.
Tanner explained on Tuesday that several items published after the injunction was issued refer to Wilson and Whitcombe as “criminals” or committing criminal behaviour, which was one of the items Herold ordered removed from the site.
At first Manderson argued libel laws have changed since Herold’s order was issued, but Justice Robert Thompson was not convinced.
“I don’t care about [the libel laws]. I’m not going to re-listen to an argument made before Justice Herold,” Thompson told Manderson.
The judge said his only job was to determine if Manderson had violated the injunction, which is in place until a trial is held for the libel case. And upon hearing just one example of the material, Thompson said he was inclined to believe that was indeed the case.
“It’s in plain English,” the judge said. “Is that not a clear violation [of the injunction]?”
Manderson said he did not think so because the material in question was public knowledge made available long before Herold issued his order and many people were already aware of it.
“I have been acting responsibly,” Manderson argued.
But Thompson said it matters not that people may have read it in the past; Manderson cannot publish any material on his website that violates the injunction.
“Through your enthusiasm for your subject matter, you may have bounded a bit past the line,” Thompson said.
Manderson agreed to remove all the material highlighted by Tanner, though he said he would do so with some reservation.
“You can have all the reservations you like,” Thompson said, as long as the material is removed.
Manderson acknowledged he may have misinterpreted Herold’s order, explaining he now realizes the importance of the wording contained therein.
“I’m not a lawyer,” said Manderson. He added he may “shut down completely” the sections of the website that contain the statements in violation of the injunction.
However, when he suggested it would take four weeks for him to remove the material, both Thompson and Tanner suggested that is too long.
“What do you have to do, hit the delete button?” Thompson asked.
He admitted to having little experience with computers, but Thompson said the task should be completed “a lot faster” than a month, adding he at first thought 24 hours would be reasonable.
Tanner suggested 48 hours be the limit but said given the concerns expressed by Manderson, he would agree to one week at the most.
Manderson cited a massive amount of files on his website, which he said receives 40,000 hits per year, and explained he could not agree to a timeline he knew was not achievable.
“I’m a one man band; that’s why I need the time,” he said, adding the absolute best he could do was three weeks. “I only want to do this job once.”
But the judge would not budge, suggesting one week is more than enough time.
In his decision, Thompson said Manderson has indeed violated the injunction issued by Herold and he ordered Manderson to remove the offending material by March 15 at 11:59pm, otherwise Manderson will be found in contempt of court and face a $500 charge for every day the material remains on the website.
Manderson said he would try his best to comply.
Tanner said Manderson was clearly in “criminal” contempt of the injunction and argued unsuccessfully to have “a clear reckoning” for his doing so over the last year.
Thompson replied there may in fact be no contempt violation if the material is removed within seven days.
He explained Manderson clearly understands he has violated the order and has sworn not to do so again in the future.
“What’s happened has happened,” Thompson said.
He then warned Manderson about violating Herold’s order in the future, saying other judges “will be much more inclined to give [the plaintiffs] what they want.”
Manderson replied if he does violate the injunction again McCarthy Tetrault lawyers have the right “to hit me with everything they’ve got.”
