Government spent more than $213K defending Seamus O'Regan in small claims court

The legal cost of defending Liberal cabinet minister Seamus O'Regan in a small claims court defamation caselaunched by a veterans advocate has now topped $213,500, according to a document tabled in the Senate.

The figure, compiled by Justice Minister David Lametti's office, was released recentlyby Sen.Marc Gold, the government's representative in the Senate, following an exchange last spring with Conservative Sen.Don Plett.

It captures the cost of litigation and support services delivered bythe government lawyers and staff who worked on the lawsuit launched two years ago by Sean Bruyea, aformer air force intelligence officer. Bruyea claimedO'Regan who was the Veterans Affairs minister at the time defamed him in a February 2018 opinion piece in The Hill Times, a parliamentary precinct publication.

The federal government agreed last June to settle the lawsuit, which originally asked for $25,000. The final settlement was paid last week.The terms were not disclosed to the public and the payment to Bruyea was not factored into the Department ofJustice'sestimate of the costs.

'This was not a frivolous claim'

"I'm floored," Plett said Tuesday in an interview with CBC News. "I feel the government has to defend itself against frivolous claims. This was not a frivolous claim. This person was defamed by a minister and the government spent almost ten times the original claim to defend against it."

Had the government "negotiated in good faith, this could have been dealt with honourably," he added.

Plett said the disclosure of the figure makes him wonder how much the current government spent fighting other "questionable" high-profile cases such as the criminal case against former vice-admiral Mark Norman, which concluded with the Crown staying the single breach of trust charge filed against the ex-commander of the navy.

As of last December, the federal government acknowledged spending $1.4 million on prosecuting Norman, who was accused of leaking cabinet secrets. But that sum does not include the cost of the RCMP's investigation, the former senior military officer's settlement and the cost of covering his legal fees.

The government alsohas racked uplegal costs fighting other veterans in court most recentlyformer corporal Charles Scott,whose Veterans Affairs case file was mishandled on at least two occasions.

Plett said it's adisturbing pattern for a government that came to power five years ago arguing that no veteran should have to fight the federal government in court.

A spokesperson for O'Regan, who is now natural resources minister, would notcomment.

"A settlement has been reached in this case. In keeping with the settlement, we will not be commenting further," saidIan Cameron.

Bruyeasaid he was surprised by the amount of public money spent onfightinghis case.

"What? Really?" he said, adding he was astonished bywhat he called "the lengths the government will go to,with other Canadians' money, to avoid saying 'I'm sorry, I was wrong.'"

His lawsuit stemmed from a Feb. 26, 2018 column written by O'Regan and printed in the Hill Times, a twice-weekly publication that covers Parliament.

The minister's piece was a rebuttal to an articleby Bruyea published two weeks priorabout the Liberal government's plan to offer veterans the option of taking either a pension for life or a lump sum payment for injuries sustained in the line of duty.

In his original opinion piece, Bruyeacompared the old pension system, enacted by the former Conservative government, with the overhauled one put in place by the Liberals that came into effect on April 1, 2019.

Backing up his claims with data, Bruyea said "the numbers don't add up."He argued that the pain and suffering compensation for ex-soldiers is "grossly unfair" and that disability claims had become "miserly."

O'Regan responded with his own column saying it was time for a "reality check" and arguing that "individuals like Sean Bruyea" are stating "mistruths about Pension for Life ... to suit their own agenda."

A federal government statementreleased last Junesaid that by agreeing to the settlement, neither the minister nor the federal government "admit any liability or wrongdoing."