Form 1 (Rule 3-1 (1)) No. wn Powell River Registry IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN GORDON FREDRICK DAVID WILSON PLAINTIFE AND HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BY OFFICER OF ‘THE GOVERNMENT, THE HONOURABLE JOHN HORGAN, PREMIER OF BRITISH COLUMBIA DEFENDANT AND HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BY OFFICER OF ‘THE GOVERNMENT THE HONOURABLE BRUCE RALSTON, MINISTER OF JOBS, TRADE AND TECHNOLOGY DEFENDANT AND JOHN JOSEPH HORGAN DEFENDANT AND BRUCE H. RALSTON DEFENDANT AND RACHEL A. BLANEY DEFENDANT NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM This action has been started by the plaintiff for the relief set out in Part 2 below. If you intend to respond to this action, you or your lawyer must.(a) file a response to civil claim in Form 2 in the above-named registry of this court within the time for response to civil claim described below, and (b) serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim on the plaintiff. If you intend to make a counterclaim, you or your lawyer must (2) file a response to civil claim in Form 2 and a counterclaim in Form 3 in the above-named registry of this court within the time for response to civil claim described below, and (b) serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim and counterclaim on the plaintiff and on any new parties named in the counterclaim. JUDGMENT MAY BE PRONOUNCED AGAINST YOU IF YOU FAIL to file the response to civil claim within the time for response to civil claim described below. Time for response to civil claim Arresponse to civil claim must be filed and served on the plaintiff, (a) if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere in Canada, within 21 days after that service, {b) if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere in the United States of ‘America, within 35 days after that service, (0) ifyou were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere else, within 49 days after that service, or (d)__ if the time for response to civil claim has been set by order of the court, within that time. CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFF Part 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS Preliminary Averments 1, The Plaintiff, Gordon Wilson, advocate and consultant, has an address c/o 4571 Marine Avenue, in the City of Powell River, in the Province of British Columbia (the “Plaintiff”) 2. The Defendant, John Joseph Horgan is an officer of the Province of British Columbia as Premier of the Province of British Columbia pursuant to the Crown Proceeding Act.The Defendant, Bruce H. Ralston is an officer of the Province of British Columbia by to his appointment as Minister of Jobs, Trade, and Technology pursuant to the Crown Proceeding Act. ‘The Defendant, Rachel A. Blaney is the Member of Parliament for North Island Powell River. The Defendant Horgan is Premier of the Province of British Columbia with an office at 617 Government St, Victoria, BC VEW 9V/1 and as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia with a constituency office at Langford ~ Juan de Fuca Community Office 122 ~ 2806 Jacklin Road Victoria, BC VSB 5A4. The Defendant Horgan is leader of the New Democratic Party of British Columbia. The Defendant Ralston is Minister of Jobs, Trade, and Technology for the Province of British Columbia with an office at 617 Government St, Victoria, BC VBW 9V1 and as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia with a constituency office at ‘Community Office 10574 King George Blvd Surrey, BC V3T2X3 The Defendant Blaney is a Member of Parliament with an office at Office of Rachel Blaney, House of Commons K1A OA6 and a constituency office at 908 Island Hwy, Campbell River, BC VOW 482. Plaintiff's Qualifications and Experience 9. 10, 11 12, ‘The Plaintiff became leader of the BC Liberal Party on Oct. 31, 1987. He was elected to the ‘Sunshine Coast Regional District as Director, 1986 to 1991. He led BC Liberals from zero seats to Official Opposition with 17 seats on Oct. 17, 1991. He was MLA for Powell River = Sunshine Coast from 1991 to 2001. ‘The Plaintiff served in the NDP cabinet from 1999 to 2001 as Minister of Finance, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, Minister of BC Ferries, Minister of Education, and Minister of Employment, International Trade and Investment. Prior to election as Leader of the Official Opposition, the Plaintiff was a professor of resource economics at Capilano College (now University) for seventeen years. In 2013, The Plaintiff re-engaged in politics to support Liberal Leader Christy Clark in her bid for election, which was successful. These experiences provided the Plaintiff with a vast wealth of knowledge including but not limited to industry-government relations and dynamics, intra-and inter-governmental relations, policies and procedures, together with personal and professional relationships with personal involved at all levels.1B. 14, 15, ‘The Plaintiff is married to former MLA Judeline Tyabji, author of three books on BC politics, and together they have five children and grandchildren. The Plaintiff's son Mathew Wilson ran for MLA in Powell River - Sunshine Coast in the May 2017 provincial election, The Plaintiff's skill set and knowledge of governmental relations were factors as the Plaintiff was appointed in October of 2013 by Premier Christy Clark to head up the LNG - Buy BC program as the advocate. This program was developed within the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism, Skills Training and Labour under Minister Shirley Bond, As Advocate, the Plaintiff was mandated to ensure that British Columbian businesses, including First Nation owned businesses, were ready and able to participate in the emerging Liquified Natural Gas industry. The Plaintiff was tasked and did meet the proponents of LNG projects, their engineering and procurement companies and agents, including Woodfibre, Tilbury, LNG Canada, Kitimat LNG, Pacific Northwest LNG and others to help facilitate opportunities for BC businesses, to determine the skills and capacity that BC business needed to qualify to bid on LNG contracts, and to recommend to government how to overcome impediments to their engagement. In addition, Wilson organized and spoke at public meetings from business organizations to large trade shows about the steps to be ready, and he facilitated partnerships between parties seeking to work together to develop LNG. One of his key areas of focus was First Nations. ‘The Plaintiff was employed as LNG — Buy BC Advocate between October 2013 and August 2017. Defamatory Statements 16. v7. On or about August 1, 2017, on CBC Radio and reprinted in the Globe and Mail, the Defendant Horgan falsely and maliciously broadcast and published or caused to be broadcast and published of and concerning the Plaintiff and of him in the way of his occupation, business, profession or office and in relation to his conduct therein the following defamatory words: Premier John Horgan weighed in on the firing of Mr. Wilson on Tuesday, telling CBC Radio, "We decided there was a better value-for-money proposition for the people of B.C. than paying $150,000 for no reports, no briefings, no memoranda, and we're going to put those resources to other activities that will benefit people.” b. Mr. Horgan said Mr. Wilson has been in the job for several years, but there is no LNG capacity to show for his efforts, and he would prefer to focus on more tangible economic-development prospects. On or about August 1, 2017, in the Vancouver Sun, the Defendant Ralston falsely and maliciously broadcast and published or caused to be broadcast and published of and18. 19. 20, concerning the Plaintiff and of him in the way of his occupation, business, profession or office and in relation to his conduct therein the following defamatory words: a. _ Jobs Minister Bruce Ralston said an internal review concluded there’s no evidence of any written reports to back up the $550,000 that Wilson had been paid as the “UNG ~ Buy B.C, advocate” since 2013. b. “His contract has been reviewed. We were unable to locate any written reports by him setting out what he had done to earn that money, so the decision has been to end the contract,” said Ralston. ¢. The review concluded that “apparently he reported orally” on the progress of his work. “But there's not even notes of that,” said Ralston. On or about August 1, 2017, on Facebook, the Defendant Blaney falsely and maliciously broadcast and published or caused to be broadcast and published of and concerning the Plaintiff and of him in the way of his occupation, business, profession or office and in relation to his conduct therein the following defamatory words: a. “Thisis the reason people are so cynical about politics. No notes, nothing tracking the work he had done, Tax payers paid $550,000 for what? When people are hungry, when we are facing a housing crisis across BC, when we need to invest opportunities for meaningful employment, and when we are facing so many challenges this was not money well spent! At the end of the day, ALL PEOPLE using tax payer money need to remember that this is money spent to support the people, not for partisans politics. A good decision was made today.” ‘The words set out in paragraph 16 referred to or were understood to refer to the Plaintiff. Particulars are as follows: a, The Defendant Horgan named the Plaintiff and referred to his employment history specifically. b, The Defendant Horgan made the comments to a wide public audience through major Canadian media outlets. ‘The words set out in paragraph 17 referred to or were understood to refer to the Plaintiff. Particulars are as follows: ‘a The Defendant Ralston named the Plaintiff and referred to his employment history specifically24. 22. 23, b. The Defendant Ralston made the comments to a wide public audience through a Canadian media outlet with wide readership that are particularly focused on the governmental affairs of the Province of British Columbia. ‘The words set out in paragraph 18 referred to or were understood to refer to the Plaintiff. Particulars are as follows: a. The Defendant Blaney’s comments referred to the Plaintiff and his employment history specifically by reference to the amount paid to him and the re-publication of the Defendant Horgan’s comments regarding Mr. Wilson providing no notes and nothing tracking the work done. b. The Defendant Blaney made the comments to a wide public audience through social media outlet with wide readership and on a platform that allowed for members of the public to comment and share widely. In their natural and ordinary meaning the words meant and were understood the mean: a. The Plaintiff did not perform the work that was required of him in his post. b. The Plaintiff did not advance the cause of Liquified Natural Gas investment in British Columbia. In the alternative, by way of innuendo, the words meant and were understood to mean that there was something dishonest about the Plaintiff's job history. The particulars of the innuendo are as follows: a. The Plaintiff's position was a political payback for supporting Premier Clark in 2013. b. The Plaintiff's work amounted to a fraud by the Plaintiff, depriving taxpayers of benefit and money. Context of Defamatory Words 24. 25, ‘There was no urgency in the Defendants, together and individually, to release of the defamatory words to a public audience. The Defendants did not serve the public interest by defaming a public employee in the media and on social media. The actions of the Defendants are contrary to the public interest and the interest of all employees of the government because the actions were taken without reasonable due diligence or concern for the privacy of the Plaintiff.26. 27, 28, 29, The defamatory words spoken by the Defendants were not responsibly made as they were made without sufficient due diligence or reference to the publicly available documents concerning the Plaintiff's employment. As aresult of the Defendants’ utterances, the public has been misled. ‘The seriousness of the matter is high as it relates to the relationship between the state and individuals and the state and employees of the state. The defamatory words uttered by the Defendants is contrary to public policy. The Defendants are public officials and members of government and commented without due diligence for the purpose of personal gain and/or political advantage. Employment Relationship and Review Conducted 30. 34. ‘The Plaintiff, as an employee of the government, has a right to see any evaluations of him that were a result of his employment. The Plaintiff has not been able to do so. The Defendants represented that the justification for the defamatory words of the Defendants was that an internal review was conducted by the Defendant Horgan and the Defendant Ralston, No internal review was undertaken or conducted. In the alternative, the internal review was not conducted with sufficient due diligence or consistent with government protocol and procedure: ‘a. The review did not include reference to the relevant information that is publicly accessible on the government website via a Freedom of Information request submitted May 20, 2015: b, Atal material times, the Freedom of Information material, including reports, briefings and memorandum was readily available on the government website and was either negligently or willfully overlooked by the Defendant Horgan and Defendant Ralston. Further, much more relevant documents and information was in the Defendant Ralston and Defendant Horgan’s possession. ©. The Plaintiff was not invited to discuss his employment relationship with the Defendant Ralston or the Defendant Horgan prior to the defamatory words uttered by the Defendants. This meeting could have satisfied the Defendant Horgan and Defendant Ralston of the Plaintiff's employment contributions and avoided the defamatory words uttered by the Defendants, The Plaintiff was never able to voice his perspective prior to the defamatory words uttered by the Defendants.32, d. The review undertaken by the Defendant Horgan and the Defendant Ralston has not been made public or been provided to the Plaintiff. In addition, the Defendant Horgan and the Defendant Ralston did not follow government policy and protocol regarding the termination of Order in Council appointees. a. Of the 133 Order in Council Appointees terminated subsequent to the change of government in the following the election in the spring of 2017, only the termination of the Plaintiff was publicly announced. The other terminations came by way of rescinded orders consistent with convention. b. The Plaintiff was improperly terminated by the Defendant Horgan and the Defendant Ralston. Damages 33. 34, 35, 36. By reason of the publication of the words uttered by the Defendants, the Plaintiff has been seriously injured in his character, credit and reputation. ‘The defamatory words uttered by the Defendants and each of them have negatively affected the Plaintiff's ability to obtain employment as a government and/or industry consultant or advocate. Potential employers are now aware that the Plaintiff has been blacklisted by the Defendant Horgan and Defendant Ralston and effectively the entirety of the government, Other potential employers are affected by the defamatory words that the Plaintiff does not perform any services as required. The Plaintiff claims punitive damages and relies on the following facts to support his. claim a. The Defendants, together and individually, undertook a campaign to destroy the Plaintiff's reputation from the position of authority and credibility granted to them by their offices. b. ‘The Defendant Ralston and Defendant Horgan publicly announced the termination of the Plaintiff's employment while all other Order in Council appointees were quietly termination in the normal course of governance. ©. The Defendants, together and individually, took advantage of the credibility, authority, power of publication of their offices to defame a public employee. The Defendant Ralston and Defendant Horgan sought out the media with the intention of damaging the Plaintiff's reputation and legacy of service. ‘The Plaintiff claims aggravated damages and relies on the following facts to support his claim:a. The Defendant Ralston and Defendant Horgan initiated a premeditated campaign to damage the reputation of the Plaintiff. b. The Defendant Ralston and Defendant Horgan defamed an employee of the government with the full knowledge that their claims were based on false, fraudulent or non-existent facts c. The Plaintiff was bound by the Privacy Act and unable to defend against the defamatory words of the Defendants as his work product is property of the government and contains confidential information. d. The defamatory words uttered by the Defendants constitute a political maneuver designed to eliminate the Plaintiff from any political opportunities in the future, e. _The defamatory words uttered by the Defendants were made out of malice. f, The defamatory words were uttered to damage the political career of the Plaintiff's son, Malfeasance in Public Office 37, Further and in the alternative, The Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the conduct of the Defendant Horgan and Defendant Ralston’s exercise of power as public officers. a. The Defendant Horgan and Defendant Ralston were acting in their capacity as public officers, b. Defendant Horgan and Defendant Ralston’s conduct of termination and public statements concerning the employment of the Plaintiff were an exercise of the power held by Defendant Horgan and Defendant Ralston as public officers. The Defendant Horgan and Defendant Ralston did not exercise due diligence in their conduct. The conduct was undertaken with reckless indifference to its legality and outcome 4. The conduct of the Defendant Horgan and Defendant Ralston was targeted malice intended to injure the Plaintiff and eliminate a potential political rival or settle an old grievance. e. Asan employee under the direct supervision of the Defendant Horgan and Defendant Ralston, the Plaintiff was owed a duty of care and the Plaintiff had a right not to be damaged by the Defendant Horgan and Defendant Ralston.f. The Defendant Horgan and Defendant Ralston’s conduct caused the Plaintiff harm by effectively eliminating his competitiveness in the government/industry consulting and advocacy sector. g. The Plaintiff was in discussion with industry for an advocacy position prior to the conduct of the Defendant Horgan and Defendant Ralston. h. The conduct of the Defendant Horgan and Defendant Ralston effectively labeled the Plaintiff as an outsider with no credibility with the current government. Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT 1. The Plaini claims against the Defendants for: ‘a. The plaintiff claims an injunction restraining the Defendants, him or herself, his or her agents, servants or otherwise from further writing or printing or broadcasting or causing to be written or printed or broadcast or otherwise publishing of the Plaintiff the alleged or any similar libel b. The Plaintiff claims general damages. ©. The Plaintiff claims special damages. d. The Plaintiff claims punitive damages. e, The Plaintiff claims aggravated damages. {The plaintiff claims total damages in the amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000.00). g. The Plaintiff claims interest pursuant to the Court Orders Interest Act RSBC 1996. h. The Plaintiff claims costs. i. The Plaintiff claims any such further relief the Court deems appropriate. -10-Part 3: LEGAL BASIS 1 The Defendant Horgan, the Defendant Ralston and the Defendant Blaney, both together and individually, committed the tort of defamation. The tort of defamation has been described as follows a. “A plaintiff in a defamation action is required to prove three things to obtain judgment and an award of damages: (1) that the impugned words were defamatory, in the sense that they would tend to lower the plaintiff's reputation. in the eyes of a reasonable person; (2) that the words in fact referred to the plaintiff; and (3) that the words were published, meaning that they were communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff. If these elements are established on a balance of probabilities, falsity and damage are presumed Grant v. Torstar Corp., {2009] 3 SCR 640 at para 28. b. The Defendant Ralston made statements to the media that he knew or ought to have known were false concerning the Plaintiff. c. The Defendant Horgan made statements to the media that he knew or ought to have known were false concerning the Plaintiff. d. The Defendant Horgan repeated statements to the media that he knew or ought to have known were false concerning the Plaintiff. e. The Defendant Blaney repeated statements in social media that she knew or ‘ought to have known were false concerning the Plaintiff's performance at his employment. {, The statements of the Defendants, both together and separately, had the malicious intention and effect of lowering the Plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person, g. The statements of the Defendants, both together and separately, refer to the Plaintiff h. The statements of the Defendant Horgan were made in a national Canadian print newspaper with a wide readership and a national radio broadcast with a wide listener base. The statements made by the Defendant Horgan are permanent and made to a third party. i. The statements of the Defendant Ralston were made in a large regional print, newspaper with a wide readership. The statements made by the Defendant Ralston are permanent and made to a third party. uwThe statements of the Defendant Blaney were made on social media with a wide audience, where the audience has the ability to comment and share the statements indefinitely. The statements made by the Defendant Blaney are permanent and made to a third party. 3. Further or in the alternative, the Defendant Horgan and Defendant Ralston committed the tort of malfeasance in public office. 4. The tort of malfeasance in public office has been described as follows: “First, the public officer must have engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct in his or her capacity as a public officer. Second, the public officer must have been aware both that his or her conduct was unlawful and that it was likely to harm the plaintiff...” Odhavjl v. Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69 (CanLIl) at para 23, ‘The Defendant Horgan was acting in his capacity as a public officer, namely, Premier of British Columbia. The Defendant Ralston was acting in his capacity as a public officer, namely, Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology. By failing to undertake the appropriate measures concerning the review of the Plaintiff's employment the Defendant Horgan and Defendant Ralston engaged in deliberate an unlawful conduct. ‘The Plaintiff Horgan knew his conduct was unlawful The defendant Ralston knew his conduct was unlawful. The Defendant Horgan knew his conduct would likely harm the Plaintiff. ‘The Defendant Ralston knew his conduct would likely harm the Plaintiff. The Defendant Horgan and Defendant Ralston’s conduct was specifically intended to injure the Plaintiff. ‘The Defendant Horgan and Defendant Ralston owed a duty to the Plaintiff by way of his employment relationship. ‘The Defendant Horgan and Defendant Ralston’s conduct caused damage to the Plaintiff's reputation and ability to earn an income. -12|, The Plaintiff was in negotiations with industry prior to the conduct of Defendant Horgan and Defendant Ralston and subsequent to the conduct of Defendant Horgan and Defendant Ralston, the Plaintiff was unable to obtain any of the positions being explored, Plaintiff's address for service: Fax number address for service: E-mail address for service: Place of trial: ‘The address of the registry is: Date: August 2017 4571 Marine Avenue, Powell River, BC VBA 2K5 604.485.2197 reception@fleminglaw.ca Powell River, Britis 105-6 953 All eet, Powell River, BC V8A 288 Signature of Lawyer for the Plainti ROBERT NOEL HAINSWORTH Rule 7-1 (1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules states: (2) Unless all parties of record consent or the court otherwise orders, each party of record to an action must, within 35 days after the end of the pleading period, (a) prepare a list of documents in Form 22 that lists (i) all documents that are or have been in the party's possession or control and that could, if available, be used by any party at trial to prove or dis fact, and rove a material {ii) all other documents to which the party intends to refer at trial, and (b) serve the list on all parties of record. oa3‘APPENDIX Part 1: CONCISE SUMMARY OF NATURE OF CLAIM: The Plaintiff's claim is against the Defendants, together and separately, for damages for libel. Part 2: THIS CLAIM ARISES FROM THE FOLLOWING: Defamatory words uttered by the Defendants. Part 3: THIS CLAIM INVOLVES: [ ]aclass action [ ] maritime law [ J aboriginal law [ ] constitutional law [ 1 conflict of laws [x] none of the above [ ]do not know Part 4: Crown Proceeding Act, RSBC 1996, ¢ 89 Libel and Slander Act, RSBC 1996, c 263 Court Order Interest Act, RSBC 1996, ¢ 79 14