There’s a very recent “judgement” (if its meandering stream of non-sequiturs can reasonably be construed as such) issued by the BC Supreme Court’s new kid on the judging block, The Honourable Madam Justice [Emily] Burke who was plucked (for some unfathomable – albeit unstated – reason) from the part-time roster of those who contribute(d) to the, no doubt, distinguished service of Canada’s Federal “Public Service Labour Relations Board” (a recently renamed “quasi-judicial administrative tribunal”) to which she had been appointed on “October 1, 2013 for a period of five years.”
UPDATE: 24-Feb-2014 Rather than struggling through the .htm version of Judge Emily’s stream of whatevers, readers might find it more helpful to use a pdf version thanks to RomanM via his comment on Steve McIntyre’s post (the first of several he has promised).
Readers might also find it helpful to review the contents of the 2010 “Statement of Claim” filed by Weaver’s counsel circa April 20, 2010: Weaver vs Corcoran, with a view towards comparing the content with that found in Judge Emily’s “judgment”.
Unfortunately, this pdf is not searchable – or copy and paste-able:-( However, my recollection is that I was more captivated by the “not/not”‘s contained in this bevvy of allegations, so I just might have missed (or paid very little attention to) pages 28 and following, where one finds a collection of alleged ‘Posting[s] 4 through 26’. No idea what might have happened to 1, 2 or 3. Who knows, perhaps some (or all?!) of 4 through 26 ended up on Weaver’s “Wall of Hate”. The poor little green lamb!
UPDATE 2: 24-Feb-2014 Many thanks – again – to RomanM who has kindly OCR’d Weaver’s “Statement of Claim” so that one might more easily compare and contrast text found in the judgment with that which appears in the Statement of Claim. New pdf: weaver-vs-corcoran_OCR[End Updates]
Yet, a mere seven (count ’em, 7) months later, in May 2014, Burke was elevated(?!) by Peter MacKay – the Federal Justice Minister, on the presumed advice/recommendation of Gaia knows who – to the position of “a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia (Vancouver)”
If Wikipedia is to be believed, in “2004-2005 Weaver was president of the University of Victoria Faculty Association and served as their chief negotiator in the 2003 and 2006 collective bargaining”. And in what surely must be nothing more than purely unrelated coincidence, Burke just happened to be “[…] a member of the BC Joint Advisory Committee for the Collective Agreement Arbitration Bureau since 2004 and the National Academy of Arbitrators since 2006.”
Any chance that Weaver and Burke (and/or one of her co-Arbitrators) might have met in the not too distant past on the same side of the BC labour relations battlefield – not to mention their respective activities and involvements on the BC labour front?! Nah … must just be coincidence!
Considering this coincidental timing overlap, any chance that the parallel and/or convergent paths of Weaver and Burke might have conveniently coincided in the past?! Nah … must just be … a $50,000 coincidence! Which makes me wonder if Weaver will be using the services of Assante Wealth Management:
But I digress … In slogging through this “judgment”, I was particularly struck by what I would deem to be (at the very best) a “C-” level of clarity and coherence in the writings of both Weaver and Judge Emily. The mileage of some may vary, but I strongly believe that Judge Emily would do well to take some judgment writing lessons from the U.K.’s Justice Charles Gray. See, for example, Gray’s (circa April 2000) judgment re Irving vs Lipstadt.
I cannot imagine that a judgment from Justice Gray would include the likes of:
 On February 10, 2010, Dr. Weaver’s counsel contacted the defendants, via letter, alleging defamation in relation to Weaver’s Web II and Climate Agency Going up in Flames; Weaver’s Web on February 11, 2010; and So Much for Pure Science on February 12, 2010. The letters requested retractions and apologies in relation to the four articles and the immediate withdrawal of the articles from the Internet.
 Dr. Weaver set up a “Wall of Hate” outside his office. Copies of diatribes against him are posted since the issue arose in 2010. He testified about and noted the photo of a person at the entrance to the University of Victoria, carrying a placard which called him a liar. Dr. Weaver testified he filed this lawsuit as it appeared to be the only option left due to the persistent attacks by the National Post, Terence Corcoran, Peter Foster and now Kevin Libin. He needed to correct the public record and protect his name. [emphasis added -hro]
 On April 21, 2010, as a result, Dr. Weaver commenced this action for defamation.
I might have missed it in my reading of Judge Emily’s pastiche, but I don’t recall seeing any mention of Weaver’s April 2010:
[Decision to send out] a Press Release announcing that he was suing the National Post for defamation. Why anyone would want to send out a Press Release announcing that one believes one has been defamed is somewhat unfathomable to me – unless, of course he who claims to have been defamed subscribes to the anti-democratic principle of “free speech for me, but not for thee”. David “I see you, I sue you” Irving applied this principle when he launched his spectacularly failed U.K. libel suit against Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt. Not sure that even Irving issued a press release, though.
I have absolutely no idea what Judge Emily might have been reading (with at least some measure of comprehension) – or smoking?! – that might have led her to conclude that:
 Essentially, the allegations of the defamatory character of the words in the four articles can be summarized as the following innuendos or inferences that Dr. Weaver:
(a) attempted to divert public attention from the IPCC and Climategate scandal by fabricating stories about the involvement of the fossil fuel industry with respect to the break-ins at his office, theft of emails from a UK University, and hack attacks at the Centre;
(b) engaged in deceptive misconduct in the news media to do so;
(c) engaged in willful manipulation and distortion of scientific data for the purposes of deceiving the public in order to promote a public agenda;
(d) in doing so, is motivated by a corrupt interest in receiving government funding and financial rewards;
(e) is wilfully concealing scientific climate data;
(f) knows or believes the IPCC reports concerning global warming are unscientific and fraudulent and seeks to avoid personal accountability for the manipulation/distortion of those reports by disassociating himself from that organization;
(g) has deceitfully or incompetently linked current weather and temperature events with global warming;
(h) authored a deceitful and manipulative work of agitation propaganda known as The Copenhagen Diagnosis; and
(i) is untrustworthy, unscientific and incompetent.
[One might reasonably postulate that the above “interpretations” (for want of a better word) might well have led (then) newbie Judge Emily to the conclusion that:]
 The plaintiff has successfully established the elements of defamation. I conclude as a matter of law the words in the articles at issue were capable of defaming the plaintiff, and as a question of fact they have done so. The onus now shifts to the defendants to establish a defence to this liability.
Who knows, eh?! Perhaps it was her extensive quasi-judicial background in “arbitration, mediation and dispute resolution” that led Judge Emily down such a ludicrous path of judicial “interpretation” of the actual text in the articles at issue. Alternatively, it might have been a function of her … well … greenieness in the judicial “pool”.
According to the judgement, the trial dates were: June 2-6, 9-13, 16-20 and July 14-16, 2014. And, notwithstanding Judge Emily’s plunge into the judicial “pool” on May 13, 2014 (thanks to MacKay), her “Formal” welcome by the BC branch of the Canadian Bar Association did not transpire until June 26, 2014.
I’ve no idea what the protocol might be regarding when a newly appointed member of the BC Supreme Court’s “pool” actually takes on his/her first case. Nor do I know what training (if any) might be provided to newbies, prior to such distinguished person’s first swing of the gavel.
But that aside … what’s really piquing my curiosity is the following, which, IMHO, read like some excerpts from Alice in Wonderland …
Here are the relevant excerpts from paragraphs  through  of the judgment (my bold throughout -hro):
Weaver did not initially complain about these [early December 2009] articles [in the National Post]. He said he was “literally beaten” up by these editorials.
Oh, the poor little green lamb, eh?! Oh, well … Fast forward to January 26 2010, where one finds Canwest journalist Richard Foot in correspondence with Weaver. At some point prior to this correspondence, Weaver appears to have been quoted in Germany’s Der Speigel, a copy of which article he seems to have sent Foot. It’s worth noting that this article “called for the reform of the IPCC and the resignation of its chairman“.
Weaver to Foot:
I am surprised about this first paragraph: “a senior Canadian climate scientist says the United Nations’ panel on global warming has become tainted by political advocacy, that its chairman should resign, and that its approach to science should be overhauled.”
You and I both know that I specifically and pointedly stated that I am NOT calling for Pachauri to resign. That is something that the UN should decide.
All you have to do is review the tapes of the interview. Of course the quote attributed to me in the article is accurate. It is a measured statement. I stated “I think that is a very legitimate question.” To ask. The whole nature of our discussion was with respect to the IPCC leadership (not the IPCC itself) sometimes crossing the lines into advocacy which the IPCC as an organization is not tasked to do
In light of the above, had I been in Judge Emily’s shoes, I’m inclined to think I would have asked Weaver to explain exactly what he means by his use of the phrase “a measured statement”. Perhaps she did, but I could see no evidence of this in the judgment.
Foot to Weaver:
My understanding from our second interview is that you were indeed calling on Pachauri to resign – that you decided to make that statement, qualified by the fact that you felt Pachauri wasn’t right for the job to begin with. I didn’t make that nuanced point in the first paragraph – which is a summary of the story that followed – but I was careful to point it out later in the article as I went through various points
[Foot subsequently quotes Weaver:]
“Weaver says Pachauri, the panel’s chairman, should resign, not only for his recent failings but because he was a poor choice to lead the IPCC to begin with.” I carefully reviewed my notes from our second interview before writing the story. Here’s what you said:
in the case of Pachauri, I agree with what is being said in Der Spiegel. [The Der Spiegel’s piece you sent me, and endorsed, clearly called for his resignation].
“I would have argued he was the wrong appointments to begin with and I think he has crossed the line, and I would agree it’s time to move on. So let’s have them move on, not because of the latest Himalayan thing, because he should have moved on two years ago after last IPCC report was done. With too much power at helm for too long there is a danger you start to believe you’re invincible. But I agree he should move on.”
Weaver to Foot:
I did state that I did not think Pachauri should have been reappointed for a second term. But I also was careful to point out that my opinions have nothing to do with the Himalayan thing. The way the first paragraph is spun without context is definitely misleading.
I was concerned about Pachauri advocacy not the IPCC’s [which is an institution] reporting to the UNFCCC [that is not made clear]. I did not call on him to resign. Me “agreeing that he should move on” is absolutely not the same as “my calling for him to resign”. In my opinion, this is the spin that was manufactured.
“Reappointed”? By whom, I wonder! I could be mistaken; however, my recollection is that the IPCC “rules” indicate that the Chair is an elected position. And in light of Weaver’s Himalayan whine, I also wonder what it is that Weaver did not understand about Foot’s “not because of the latest Himalayan thing”.
But most importantly, had I been in Judge Emily’s shoes – particularly in light of Weaver’s earlier insistence that he was “NOT calling for Pachauri to resign” – what exactly did Weaver mean when he repeatedly used the phrase “move on” (and/or variants thereof) in the above?!
In light of all the foregoing, I think I can understand why Foot did not respond again to Weaver; what I’m not entirely sure about, though, is what in Gaia’s name might have led Weaver to conclude that his subsequent “letters to the editor of a variety of publications” somehow or other magically superseded his acknowledgement that he “made no complaint about the column by Mr. Foot”.
For the record, I see that the National Post is “studying the ruling before making any decision on an appeal.”
Perhaps while she’s waiting for the NP’s decision, Judge Emily will take advantage of this … er … “pause” to bring herself up to speed, by taking a look at an historian’s “brilliant  book, The Age of Global Warming, [in which] British writer Rupert Darwall notes a phenomenon known as “climate change derangement syndrome.”