Blogger’s defamation of B.C. business owners may be extortion attempt, judge suggests

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

The owners of an Okanagan fruit packing business have won a default judgment in their defamation case against a prolific blogger who has ignored court orders and continued a campaign of “unsupported, hate-filled vitriol” against them.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice John Gibb-Carsley granted the default judgment against Daryl Grant MacAskill in a decision issued last week.

MacAskill, who goes by the aliases “Ace” and “Ace Ventura,” runs a blog called Gangsterism Out and “has no apparent connection to the plaintiffs,” Sandher Fruit Packers Ltd., Bir Singh Sandher, Gurtaj Singh Sandher and Prabtaj Singh Sandher, according to Gibb-Carsley’s decision.

“Mr. MacAskill has made allegations against the plaintiffs on the blog including that the plaintiffs are involved in criminal activity including organized drug trafficking, murder and human trafficking as well as being members of terrorist organizations and producing chemical weapons,” the decision reads.

In a previous decision issued earlier this year, Gibb-Carsley described MacAskill’s blog posts as “woefully devoid of facts,” and “unsourced and false.”

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

In that decision, Gibb-Carsley issued a warrant for MacAskill’s arrest, finding it necessary to bring him before the court before holding him in contempt for violating an injunction ordering him to take down some of his posts about the Sandhers and refrain from making similar ones in the future.

As of the most recent decision, MacAskill had not been arrested. Gibb-Carsley concluded he appears to have moved to Ontario to avoid participating in the B.C. court process.

“Fleeing the jurisdiction as opposed to submitting to the court to address his alleged contempt demonstrates a further disregard for the court and the court processes,” the latest decision reads.

MacAskill did not participate in the hearing that led to the decision, despite knowing that it was going to happen, a refusal to engage in the legal process that Gibb-Carsley found “neither new, nor surprising.”

The hearing pertained to an application from the plaintiffs to strike MacAskill’s response to their notice of civil claim and grant a default judgment in their favour.

The Sandhers argued that MacAskill’s response had failed to comply with B.C. Supreme Court rules and was an abuse of process. Gibb-Carsley agreed on both counts, though either would have been sufficient to strike the defendant’s submission.

The judge concluded that MacAskill’s conduct during the litigation — which has included publishing information received through the court process, in violation of confidentiality rules, as well as “distributing and posting numerous unsupported and negative statements regarding a Justice of this Court, court staff, the plaintiffs’ former lawyer and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada” — means he should not be given a chance to submit an amended response to the claim.

“The number of continued breaches and the increasing vitriol in his posts gives me no confidence that, if given a chance, he will conduct himself differently in the future,” Gibb-Carsley’s decision reads.

“Accordingly, I order the response to be struck and award default judgment to the plaintiffs.”

A hearing will be held to assess damages against MacAskill at a future date, and Gibb-Carsley ordered him to pay “special costs” to the plaintiffs for his “reprehensible” conduct.

Blog an extortion attempt?

The judge also shared some general thoughts on the case in a “conclusion” section of his decision.

“Mr. MacAskill’s conduct in this litigation is troubling,” the section reads. “Without question, free speech is a cornerstone of a free and democratic society. People are entitled to express their opinions and their concerns regarding their personal views of others and events in the world. However, there are limits to that expression.”

“It is unfortunate that the plaintiffs have had to expend such time and effort to defend themselves against Mr. MacAskill’s accusations,” a later paragraph of the conclusion continues.

“Further, counsel for the plaintiffs and court staff and other justice participants have been subjected to Mr. MacAskill’s vitriol. The way Mr. MacAskill has conducted himself in these proceedings should have no place in litigation.”

The decision notes email exchanges between MacAskill and a representative of the plaintiffs that suggest the blogger “was driven not by the pursuit of the truth, but instead to extort money from the plaintiffs.”

The referenced emails are reproduced, in part, in the decision.

In one of them, MacAskill references his belief that the Sandhers have “surely” spent at least $400,000 on the litigation so far, and claims the upcoming hearing will cost $50,000 more and “change not a thing.”

“YOU go n n and tell these sickening MFers to make me an offer to remove everything,” the email reads, as quoted in the decision.

“Do it now you bag of (expletive).”

In another email, MacAskill wrote: “You go run and tell your Sandher scum I want to make a deal.”

“The emails support an inference that Mr. MacAskill is motivated to extort some form of payment to stop his actions by requesting a sum of money to ‘remove everything,’ which I take to mean the derogatory statements on the blog,” the decision reads. “Although this is not directly relevant to the application, these emails somewhat attenuate any view that Mr. MacAskill is motivated by seeking the truth, or his version of the truth, on the blog.”