Former Vancouver mayor Kennedy Stewart gets $192K to cover cost of fighting NPA defamation case

Update, June 15, 2024:

Former Vancouver mayor Kennedy Stewart saidthe Non-Partisan Association (NPA) wrote him a cheque to cover the majority of his legal expenses, after both a B.C. Supreme Court (BCSC) judge and a Court of Appeal judge ordered the party to do so.

The$192,000 cheque is about $10,000 less than the amounthis lawyer charged, Stewart said.

Heincurred legal expenses of more than$100,000 when defending himself against the NPA'sdefamationsuit in BCSC.

Thenin December 2023, theNPA took the BCSCruling to the Court of Appeal to try and have it dismissed, but the judgesruled in Stewart's favour. In defending himself at the Court of Appeal, Stewart incurred additional legal bills, for which the NPA is responsible.

CBC News reached out to the NPA for comment, but did not hear back before publication.

Original story, March 22, 2023:

A B.C. judge has ruled former Vancouver mayor KennedyStewart can recover the expenditure of more than $100,000 in legal costs related to a failed defamation case launched by political rivals in the once-dominant Non-Partisan Association.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Wendy Baker said in her March 20 ruling that the defamation case against Stewart by current andformer members of the NPA's board of directors wasa "strategic lawsuit against public participation," or aSLAPP suit.

A SLAPPlawsuit is a legal manoeuvreoften used by the rich and powerful to intimidate, silence and/or bankrupt opponents. In 2019, B.C. passed anti-SLAPP legislationaimed atensuringthe protection of free public debate.

The NPA plaintiffs listed in the suit are David Mawhinney, Christopher Wilson, David Pasin, Phyllis Tang, Angelo Isidorou, Federico Fuoco and Wesley Mussio.

They sued Stewart after he issued a news release in January 2021 denouncing "hate and extremism'' in the NPA in response to media reports on the party's internal turmoil over an ideological shift to the right.

Baker's judgment says the defamation claims had "substantial merit,'' but found Stewart's statements "were not made with malice, and that Mr. Stewart was responding to news articles which had already put into the public arena the alleged hateful views of the NPA board."

Baker said the NPA board members also tried to strategically and inappropriately disqualify Stewart's lawyers from the case, increasing his legal costs.

The ruling says Stewart wanted damages, arguing the lawsuit was filed in bad faith for an improper purpose, but Baker said thatawarding full costs addresses any harm the case may have caused.