B.C. court declines to dismiss defamation case against blogger, issues arrest warrant for contempt

The courthouse in New Westminster is shown. (CTV News)

A prolific blogger who has spent more than a year targeting the owners of an Okanagan fruit farm has lost his bid to have a defamation lawsuit against him dismissed.

Instead, the B.C. Supreme Court has issued a warrant for Daryl Grant MacAskill’s arrest so that he can be brought before a judge to face contempt of court allegations.

MacAskill – who goes by the aliases “Ace” and “Ace Ventura,” according to Justice John Gibb-Carsley’s recent decision – “maintains and controls” a blog called “Gangsterism Out.”

Since March 2024, MacAskill has published dozens of blog posts about Sandher Fruit Packers Ltd. – a family fruit farm business based in Kelowna – and its operators Bir Singh Sandher, Gurtaj Singh Sandher and Prabtaj Singh Sandher.

The Sandhers have sued MacAskill for defamation, and they won an injunction last year in which the court ordered MacAskill to take down some of his posts and refrain from making similar statements about the plaintiffs while the underlying case remains before the courts.

“The defendant’s statements about the plaintiffs to which they take offence include statements that the plaintiffs have committed murder, human trafficking, illegal immigration activities, money laundering, drug trafficking and smuggling, bribery of public officials and politicians; and that the plaintiffs are financing and sponsoring terrorist groups, members of terrorists groups, and members of organized crime gangs including the Sinaloa drug cartel and the Brothers Keepers,” Gibb-Carsley’s decision reads.

“The statements also include crude, racist and homophobic language and content. The plaintiffs argue that there is no basis for any of the statements and that their reputation and livelihoods have been adversely impacted by the baseless accusations.”

The underlying defamation case remains to be determined. In his decision this week, Gibb-Carsley dealt with three applications from the parties.

‘Misinformation’ is not in the public interest

MacAskill asked the court to dismiss the Sandhers’ claims under B.C.’s Protection of Public Participation Act, which is intended to protect journalists and other members of the public from defamation lawsuits that seek to limit speech on matters of public interest.

“In short, the defendant argues that the claims he makes about the plaintiffs on the internet are in the public interest and so should not be muzzled by the plaintiffs’ defamation claim,” Gibb-Carsley’s decision summarizes.

The defendant also asked the court to order the plaintiffs to allow him to cross-examine them on affidavits they filed in support of their case.

Despite filing two applications, MacAskill did not appear in court for the hearings on them, a fact Gibb-Carsley concluded was “an active choice not to participate” on the defendant’s part.

The judge dismissed both of the blogger’s applications, ruling that he had provided “no factual basis to cross-examine the plaintiffs” and that he had failed to establish that the subject matter of his allegedly defamatory statements was in the public interest.

“While the idea that free speech is critical to the well-being of a democratic and just society is unassailable, in my view, the information the defendant has posted on his blog is so woefully devoid of facts that it does not satisfy the definition of public interest,” the decision reads.

“Indeed, unsourced and false accusations may be better characterized as ‘misinformation.’ The spreading of misinformation or lies is not in the public interest.”

Arrest warrant issued

The plaintiffs’ application to the court sought an order finding MacAskill in contempt for violating the injunction, but they conceded that no such order could be granted without the defendant present.

According to the decision, this is because contempt allegations are “quasi-criminal” in nature and “require a high standard of procedural fairness and evidence.” It would be unfair to MacAskill to find him in contempt of court without having him present to answer the contempt allegations.

Because of this, the plaintiffs sought – and Gibb-Carsley ordered – a warrant for MacAskill’s arrest.

The judge concluded that the defendant was clearly aware of the injunction and the contempt application, but continued to publish the allegedly defamatory information on his blog and in emails to the plaintiffs and their lawyers.

The decision includes quotes from a few of the “many” posts MacAskill has made that breach the injunction order, as well as quotes from one of the defendant’s emails to one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers that “provides the flavour of the abuse and vitriol that the defendant uses in in his correspondence.”

The quoted email taunts the lawyer, calling him “a retard” and a “f***ing stupid c***,” and referring to his clients as “scum.”

“I am told that the volume of emails sent from the defendant to Mr. Byma is significant, with over 400 sent to Mr. Byma alone since July 4, 2024, and hundreds more sent to other individuals at the plaintiffs’ counsel’s law firm and others,” Gibb-Carsley’s decision reads.

The judge concluded there was a “prima facie” – a legal term meaning “on its face” – case that MacAskill had violated the injunction, and ordered a warrant for his arrest so that he can face the contempt allegations.

Gibb-Carsley’s decision also offered the defendant some unsolicited advice.

“One of the factors the court will consider in a contempt hearing are the steps that an alleged contemnor has taken to purge his or her contempt,” the decision reads. “As such, in the strongest of terms I encourage the defendant to take steps to comply with the injunction order and remove the offending materials from his blog and cease and desist from taking other steps that are contrary to that order or otherwise could be characterized as abusive.”

“In this regard, I would especially encourage the defendant to cease his abusive emails to counsel for the plaintiffs and to members associated with the plaintiffs’ counsel. There is simply no room for that form of abuse or hate-filled language in our justice system.”