Defendant Anastasia Rioux has submitted an application to have a lawsuit by Ward 11 Coun. Bill Leduc to be thrown out as an attempt to silence detractors.
Rioux is expected to make a motion to a judge on Friday morning at the latest, and filed a notice of motion earlier this month.
Leduc is seeking $450,000 from the City of Greater Sudbury and Rioux in response to an Election Compliance Audit Committee investigation into his 2022 campaign finances, which found reasonable grounds to determine he broke the rules.
The lawsuit alleges that Rioux defamed him and that the city’s Election Compliance Audit Committee was biased against him and “engaged in unlawful conduct.”
Both Leduc’s lawsuit and allegations he broke campaign finance rules are before the courts.
(This isn’t to be confused with an unrelated $29,500 lawsuit Leduc filed against the city in response to city council’s vote to dock his pay for 30 days for alleged Code of Conduct breaches.)
Rioux’s complaint led to the investigation, and Leduc’s lawsuit targets her for making “false” claims “made with malice and the intent to harm Mr. Leduc’s reputation.”
Points of alleged defamation include Rioux’s assertion that a 2022 Grandparents’ Day event was used to boost Leduc’s campaign, which was the key point she brought forward for the Election Compliance Audit Committee to investigate. Both the committee and a third-party investigation by KPMG concluded there were reasonable grounds to support Rioux’s assessment, which is why it is progressing through the court process.
Rioux’s latest formal response to Leduc’s lawsuit follows up on a statement of defence in which, through legal representation, she accused the city council member of filing a frivolous ‘SLAPP’ lawsuit.
SLAPP lawsuits are “aimed at chilling public discourse generally by discouraging, intimidating, and silencing the defendant and those like her, from exercising their legal right to free speech and lawful public participation on matters of public interest,” the statement of defence notes.
In her latest legal response, Rioux wrote that the alleged defamatory statements were made on matters of public interest and in a formal process/proceeding.
It rejects the notion that Leduc has suffered “any actionable harm attributable to Ms. Rioux,” and asserts that Leduc’s lawsuit would “have a chilling effect on the forms of discourse that are fundamental to a healthy democracy,” including:
- Comments by citizens to the media regarding the conduct of their elected representatives
- Complaints submitted by members of the public through official channels to judicial and quasi-judicial bodies responsible for oversight and accountability
- Testimony and evidence submitted as part of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, including at the request of such bodies
- Speech in general that is guaranteed by Section 2 (b) of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Meanwhile, the city’s statement of defence similarly asked that Leduc’s lawsuit be dismissed, denying that Leduc suffered the damages or losses suffered and that “any impact to Mr. Leduc’s political ambitions, if any has been suffered, are a result of his own failures to ensure compliance with the campaign finance rules.”
Tyler Clarke covers city hall and political affairs for Sudbury.com.
