According to an article on the Capital Daily news (and Court Services Online), Timothy Craig Durkin has filed a defamation suit against Capital Daily. Jimmy Thomson of Capital Daily now appears on a list of legal actions initiated by Durkin. Durkin has also filed suits against Facebook Inc, Britt Santowski (SPN), Crease Harman LLP (the legal team representing the Philips), and Sinclair Philip (previous owner of the Sooke Harbour House) among others.
The staff at Capital Daily have a legal budget, but a lawsuit is above and beyond normal expenditures. They are turning to their readers to assist them by becoming members.
“We are willing to spend the time to fight for press freedom,” they write. “Thousands more in legal fees to defend our reporting, however, is more than we can swallow alone.”
How can you help? “Donate! We have set up a legal fund for this lawsuit and every little bit helps get us closer to our goal.”
Durkin has long used the legal system at his convenience, suing individuals and organizations publishing court-established and well-documented facts.
“We had to go through a 56-day trial to prove we were the owners of Sooke Harbour House,” observed Frederique Philip, a former owner of the Sooke Harbour House, in correspondence. “He lied, he perjured himself ….. but nothing happened.” She also noted that Durkin represented himself, adding significantly to the length and cost of the trial. The Philips still have not received a penny of the $4M+ court-ordered fines imposed upon Durkin by the court, in finding in favour of the Philips.
Defamation lawsuits do not assume innocence, a Canadian right under the Charter. Quite the opposite. These cases have what’s known as reverse onus, meaning that once a person is served, they are assumed guilty unless they file a response arguing otherwise. If the charged person ignores the charge or otherwise does not respond, they will be automatically found guilty and the courts then determine the costs without their input. In responding, the charged person will incur legal costs that can range from the basic cost of filing to the more complicated costs of submitting a legally-informed defence.
In a legitimate case, the person levying the charge would then initiate a trial to further argue their case. In a strategic suit, the person levying the charge can let it remain on the books indefinitely or until the defendant sets the trial. Why does this matter? Because whoever initiates the charges typically assumes responsibility for the court costs. Even the 56-day trial against the Philips had to be initiated by the Philips … who then had to ask the judge for a special ruling that the court costs be charged to Durkin (which was granted).
“Please support Capital Daily,” asks Britt Santowski, Publisher of SPN, of SPN readers. “They are one of the best local investigative reporting newspapers. I am a paying subscriber. You should consider becoming one too! This type of scrutiny is critical for a balanced and functional democracy. They were the only publisher willing to dive deep into Durkin’s antics. They should be rewarded, not punished.”
From this webpage:
Q. Why are reverse onuses a problem?
Under the Charter, everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Normally, the prosecution bears the burden of proving all aspects of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, including the inapplicability of any defenses that are raised.
When a reverse onus applies, the accused must prove the relevant element on what is called a “balance of probabilities.” This may result in cases where an accused might nevertheless be convicted even though there is a reasonable doubt as to their guilt.
“Defendants, once accused, are prima facie liable until they prove themselves innocent (reverse onus).”
A tactic in defamation cases is the filing of a strategic lawsuit against public participation (“SLAPP”). A SLAPP suit, or intimidation lawsuit, is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.
- Human serial suer strikes again: Durkin files a defamation lawsuit against Capital Daily
- Administrative hearing date set for alleged fraudster Timothy Craig Durkin: May 16, 2022
- Security Commission alleges Vancouver Island man sold fake ownership interest in Sooke Harbour House
- Scammers Timothy Durkin and Rodger Gregory personally held responsible for “Special Costs”
- How a shyster was allowed to destroy lives and operate with impunity right here in Sooke
- Timothy Durkin’s admissibility hearing again adjourned until September 13, 2021
- Ramblings continue, hearing concludes on application for special costs: Timothy Durkin and Rodger Gregory
- Timothy Durkin’s admissibility hearing adjourned until April 2021
- Court costs waived for Philips (plus a few choice descriptors of Durkin)
- Application for Special Costs on hold for Gregory; Durkin ends with arguments, accusations and self-pity
- Basran rules: Philips’ lawyers awarded proceeds from sale of Sooke Harbour House, Durkin denied
- Timothy Durkin feels dropped 10,000 feet into a battleground (of his own making)
- Timothy Durkin among those asking for money on the sale of Sooke Harbour House
- “You wasted my time” Kicking the can down the road continues for Timothy Durkin; no decision, more delay
- Scheduled admissibility hearing for Timothy Durkin obfuscated, observers on trial
- “Garden variety bully” Durkin found responsible, directly held liable for $4M
- Former manager of a Sooke hotel sues Facebook for $50Million
- Sooke Harbour House sells for $5.6M in court-ordered sale
- Rumour confirmed, owner of Sooke PocketNews being sued
- Opportunity to appeal definitively denied, Durkin’s deportation hearing to proceed
- Courts rule against Tim Durkin’s request to have a deportation hearing overturned
- Canada Border Services claims manager of Sooke Harbour House is wanted for fraud