Is Andrew Weaver letting lawyer lead him by the nose?

Two days ago, Canada’s National Post reported [h/t John Francis via Climate Audit] that it is launching an appeal against newbie Judge Emily Burke’s $50,000 award in the case of Weaver’s Wall of Hate about which I had written (inter alia):

[120] 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 the heels of Judge Emily’s written meanderings, (pdf) dated Feb. 5, 2015, Weaver was interviewed on CBC’s As It Happens. See the Awesome Alex Cull‘s transcript of Weaver in typical “unscripted” mode, on Feb. 9.

Interestingly, Weaver made absolutely no mention of this alleged “Wall of Hate” during the course of this interview. Although he did state:

Carol Off: Mr. Weaver, how did you react, when you learned that you had won this defamation suit?

Andrew Weaver: Well, I was absolutely thrilled. I mean, this has been five long years, and to get complete vindication – I was just ecstatic.

I’m not sure exactly what might have “thrilled” Weaver (precision has rarely been his forté). But perhaps the following from Judge Emily’s “judgment” might have contributed to his euphoria:

[290] I am of the view a significant award is appropriate. The inferential meaning of the words implies a serious defect in character that impacts Dr. Weaver’s academic and professional world. The evidence establishes Dr. Weaver was deeply affected by what he perceived as a barrage of articles impugning his integrity and academic reputation. These gave rise to the “Wall of Hate” that he maintained outside his office; comments, he noted, which arose after the publication of those articles.

[291] I consider an award of $50,000 in general damages against all defendants jointly and severally to be appropriate in this case. I decline to award aggravated or punitive damages. I have not found malice to be present in this case. [my bold -hro]

Considering that he did not even mention this “Wall of Hate” – which certainly seems to have influenced Judge Emily – during his CBC interview, one cannot help wondering just how “deeply affected” Weaver really was.

To the best of my knowledge, things had been fairly quiet on this aspect of the Weaver-front in the interim. Although I was long ago banned from accessing his twitter-feed, so I might well have missed any ongoing (and presumably adverse) “impacts” on the poor little lamb’s “academic and professional world”.

In fact, considering his views as reported by the Toronto Star (in their “Crime” section), it would appear that Weaver is still a pretty happy camper:

The National Post is appealing the decision in a closely watched defamation case, the first in the country to contemplate whether a newspaper can be held responsible for reader comments on its website.

[…]

On Tuesday, Weaver said he believes the judgment Burke issued in February “was very clear.”

It was a decision that I was very pleased with, and I suspect it was a decision the National Post was very unhappy with,” Weaver said. [my bold -hro]

Somewhat less effusive, but still reasonably consistent with his earlier remarks to the CBC – at least to the extent Weaver certainly wasn’t voicing any dissatisfaction with Judge Emily’s judgment.

But, the same Toronto Star article also reports that Weaver’s lawyer has evidently decided that he’s not a happy camper. Not only is he (quite suddenly?!) not a happy camper, but he’s decided that he’s going to up the financial ante:

Weaver’s lawyer, Roger McConchie, said he is preparing a cross-appeal, which will attempt to increase the damages his client was awarded, as well as address “several aspects of the claim” that were not decided in Weaver’s favour. [my bold -hro]

Your mileage may certainly vary, but I cannot help wondering if Weaver is letting his unhappy lawyer lead him by the nose! Unless, of course, his words to the CBC and/or the Toronto Star are simply further instances of Weaver failing to say what he means, and/or mean what he says!

One thought on “Is Andrew Weaver letting lawyer lead him by the nose?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s