Blogger’s second lawsuit against city put on hold
Charles LeBlanc contends members of the Fredericton Police Force have unfairly targeted him
DON MACPHERSON THE DAILY GLEANER
A blogger with a contentious history with police and public officials agreed on Wednesday to a court order to have the second of two lawsuits he’s filed against the city put on hold.
Charles LeBlanc, best known in Fredericton for his social activism and community blog, had previously filed two notices of action in the Court of Queen’s Bench against the City of Fredericton.
In those lawsuits, the blogger contends members of the Fredericton Police Force have unfairly targeted him.
LeBlanc was in court on Wednesday, as the city’s legal counsel had filed a motion with the Court of Queen’s Bench seeking to have the second of the two lawsuits stayed or dismissed.
Lawyer Leanne Murray argued the two lawsuits basically make the same allegations, and the second one ought to be set aside.
But before Justice Judy Clendening could address that issue, LeBlanc put another matter before her: her recusal.
He asked the judge to recuse herself, arguing that based on his past dealings with her, he feels he won’t get a fair hearing.
“There’s no reason for me to recuse myself from the matter,” Clendening said.“We don’t have any personal history.”
LeBlanc asked for an adjournment, saying he wanted the city’s motion to be heard by an unbiased judge.
Clendening explained a recusal motion is premature, because it’s not known which judge will hear his lawsuit. She said Wednesday’s proceedings were simply designed to deal with the city’s motion.
When the judge made it clear she wouldn’t be stepping down, LeBlanc said,“Of course not.”
Murray also brought up another issue before the city’s motion was heard. She noted LeBlanc’s affidavit, filed in response to the dismissal/ stay motion, didn’t follow the rules of court.
She said the 55-paragraph document was replete with argument, opinion and irrelevant information, and noted all but two paragraphs and a few select sentences actually stuck to factual information, as an affidavit should.
“They should be struck, as they are improper,” Murray said.
“Did you understand the argument?” the judge asked LeBlanc, who’s representing himself in the matter.
“Of course not,” LeBlanc said again.
Clendening noted the affidavit was filled with innuendo and comments from other people, elements that shouldn’t be in such a sworn document.
“Why are we here?” the blogger asked the court.
The judge explained the city contends his two lawsuits are the same, and Murray was asking the court to either dispose of the second one or to stay it.
Clendening suggested she was considering a stay, which she explained to LeBlanc would mean it wouldn’t go away, just that it would be set aside until the first lawsuit is fully addressed and completed.
“It’s not dispensing of the (second) lawsuit,” she said. “And that’s not unreasonable.”
Murray noted her client would prefer if the second lawsuit were dismissed, as the city would likely still incur legal costs later.
Clendening said the city could bring a dismissal motion on the second lawsuit after the first is dealt with, and her client would be saving money now by agreeing to stay the second notice of action instead of arguing for its dismissal.
The judge told LeBlanc focusing on a single court action now would simplify things for him and the City of Fredericton.
She also noted it appeared the first lawsuit would be ready to be set down for trial within a few months.
Murray said a stay would be satisfactory, and LeBlanc agreed to the stay as well.
That eliminated a need for the court to rule on the propriety of his affidavit.
In his original lawsuit, LeBlanc contends the city police force started having it in for him after he video-recorded Const. Stephen Stafford’s use of force in the arrest of a soldier in Fredericton’s downtown bar zone in July 2009.
That video was used as evidence at the officer’s assault trial, at the end of which Stafford was acquitted.
After that trial, LeBlanc claims, members of the city police started targeting him and issuing bylaw tickets to him while ignoring similar infractions by others.
The blogger protested what he perceived to be unfair conduct using a bullhorn in front of police headquarters on Queen Street, which led to an arrest and prosecution for causing a disturbance.
LeBlanc pleaded guilty to that charge and was placed on probation in January 2012, and three days later, the city raided his home as part of a criminal libel investigation.
The city police alleged LeBlanc libelled a member of the force on his blog by alleging the officer touched him inappropriately and referred to him as a sexual pervert.
That libel probe didn’t proceed after the provincial Attorney General’s Office determined the relevant section of the Criminal Code of Canada was potentially unconstitutional.
LeBlanc has since received a document used to obtain a warrant in that case that referred to its being part of a child-sex exploitation investigation.
The police force has explained that was a copy-and-paste error, as the document in question, used to get information on online activity, was normally used in child exploitation probes.
LeBlanc rejected that explanation, and for a time, he started alleging members of the police force were pedophiles.
That led to a city complaint to his free hosting service about the blog, and the service took the blog down. LeBlanc launched a new blog shortly thereafter.
