With everything that’s going on lately in politics, it’s rare to have something positive to report. However, there is a possible gem in the works. Senate Bill S-257 was introduced by in late 2021 (Conservative) Senator Salma Ataullahjan. Granted, it hasn’t passed, but is still noteworthy.
If this, or something similar get does pass, it would entrench “political belief or activity” as protected grounds within the Human Rights Code of Canada.
Canadian Human Rights Act
.
1 Section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:
Purpose
2 The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability, political belief or activity or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.
2 Subsection 3(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Prohibited grounds of discrimination
3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability, political belief or activity and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.
Of course, this has the potential to stand other legislation on its head.
Would Bill C-16 (gender identity) have to be reworked or thrown out? Would it now be protected speech to say that men are men, and women are women? What about laws to put Holocaust deniers in prison? What about Iqra Khalid’s M-103 (Islamophobia) Motion from several years ago? What about “hate speech” restrictions criticizing immigration and multiculturalism? What about anti-lockdown protests over the last few years that violated “public health” orders from unelected bureaucrats?
It’s entirely possible Bill S-257 will never pass. However, it does have the potential to invalidate draconian legislation on the grounds of free speech. We’ll have to see.
The SSHRC, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, has been involved in handing out more taxpayer money for the stated purpose of combatting “disinformation”. For the 2023 year, grants have been issued in the amount of $10,000 each, to various people.
Of course, this isn’t the first time such grants have been issued. It’s just the latest iteration of these initiatives.
promote Canadian research that will develop better understanding — based on empirical evidence — of the impacts of online disinformation in Canada in order to better inform programs and policies;
build Canada’s capacity to conduct research on and related to countering online disinformation and other related online harms; and
help foster a community of research in the digital citizenship and online disinformation space in Canada.
NAME
YEAR
AMOUNT
Brown, Carol A.M.
Jan 1, 2023
$10,000.00
Chen, Yu-Chen
Jan 1, 2023
$10,000.00
Dowling, Erin Jennifer
Jan 1, 2023
$10,000.00
Farokhi, Zeinab
Jan 1, 2023
$10,000.00
Kennedy, Angel M.
Jan 1, 2023
$10,000.00
Lin, Hause
Jan 1, 2023
$10,000.00
Malo, Benjamin
Jan 1, 2023
$10,000.00
Martel, Marc-Antoine
Jan 1, 2023
$10,000.00
Miller, Mark D.
Jan 1, 2023
$10,000.00
Munro, Daniel
Jan 1, 2023
$10,000.00
Park, Jeong Hyun
Jan 1, 2023
$10,000.00
Rodrigues, Daniel
Jan 1, 2023
$10,000.00
Stijelja, Stefan
Jan 1, 2023
$10,000.00
If nothing else, at least the grants and recipients are easy to find online. It’s always beneficial to know who’s on the Government payroll.
There is also a sub-group of this program, designed to partner with various colleges and universities to achieve what are essentially the same goals. These are the: (a) Insight Grant Supplements; (b) Postdoctoral Fellowship Supplements; and (c) Doctoral Award Supplements. Eligible areas include:
Creators and propagators of online disinformation in a Canadian context.
Digital techniques used to spread online disinformation in a Canadian context.
Sectors of Canadian society more or less vulnerable to online disinformation, including how disinformation may specifically affect marginalized, minority and Indigenous communities.
Effects of exposure to information and online disinformation on Canadians’ individual beliefs and behavior as well as overall mental health.
Different impacts of online disinformation in Canada and on Canada, including on democratic institutions and elections.
Government responses to online disinformation.
Disinformation outside of the internet/not online in a Canadian context.
In short, grant money is available to those willing to research into ways of “combatting misinformation”. Plainly stated, this is anything the Government disagrees with.
While Ottawa may not be banning free speech (yet), they are working on ways to limit the scope and depth of what is being talked about.
It’s no secret that very little (if anything) the Canadian Government does actually originates organically from within this country. Typically, some international body or N.G.O. is responsible for setting it in motion. And efforts to combat misinformation online are no exception.
Activities like the Digital Citizen Initiative and Digital Citizen Contribution Program understandably raise questions. In a free and open society, should the Government be attempting to influence and manipulate public opinion on important topics? Why are we paying for this? And does this sort of thing end up doing an end run around democracy? (Not that we really have one)
Turns out that this stems from a 2018 agreement that received little coverage in the mainstream press. Here is how it’s explained on the Paris Call website.
In 2018, French President Emmanuel Macron launched the Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace with the goal of addressing new cyberspace threats that could endanger citizens and infrastructure. The Paris Call invites all cyberspace actors to work together and encourages states to cooperate internationally with private sector partners, the world of research, and civil society organizations.
Supporters of the Paris Call commit to working together to adopt responsible behaviour and secure cyberspace, based on a set of nine common principles. These principles act as a non-binding declaration and set a precedent as the largest-ever multi-stakeholder cybersecurity agreement in modern history.
Today, over 95 governments, nearly 350 international organizations, as well as more than 600 private sector entities have endorsed the Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly pledged Canada’s support for the Paris Call in November 2018.
The media grants to “safeguard democracy” are somewhat known in media and political circles. But what isn’t discussed is the international agreement done to make this happen.
Now, were any referendums or election campaigns ever held on joining some initiative like this? No. And it raises the question of who exactly will be setting the standards, enforcing the standards, and what kind of private information that will be shared.
Of course, Microsoft is involved in this project, because, why not?
As with all (or at least, most) agreements, this is considered non-binding. However, Government treats it as if it were a legitimate obligation. Now, what are the ideas behind this?
9 Principles of the Paris Call:
Protect individuals and infrastructure
Protect the Internet
Defend electoral processes
Defend intellectual property
Non-proliferation
Lifecycle security & supply chain security
Cyber hygiene
No private hack back
International Norms
On their own, these principles seem harmless, and in fact beneficial. But with all things, the details of how it would be implemented are worth looking at.
The Paris Call is supported by some 400 N.G.O.s and 700 private corporations, at least, according to recent updates on the site. That of course raises the question of who’s just there in a symbolic capacity, and who was actually involved in drafting these documents. They emphasize multi-stakeholder participation at the U.N., without really specifying.
Here, the Government uses taxpayer money to “combat harmful disinformation“. Now, it doesn’t (yet) call for the banning of certain viewpoints, but it does mean subsidizing and financing favourable ones.
This has led to the Digital Democracy Project and the “Media Literacy Week“, among other initiatives. The Federal Government is using taxpayer money to domestically implement an international agreement for cyberspace security.
The Digital Citizen Contribution Program was an initiative to hand out fairly large sums of money to “media influencers” that could potentially sway public opinion on a number of different topics.
The amounts and recipients of earlier grants were previously covered here. That addressed the DCCP, but was not exhaustive of these programs.
Special Ukraine Crisis Call
In the light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, this special call is aimed to address the growing spread of harmful misinformation and disinformation. The special targeted call was launched to fund initiatives that help people identify misinformation and disinformation online.
Yes, the Feds actually had a program to contract out influential people that could manipulate public opinion on the Ukraine-Russia situation. Is war propaganda ethical at all?
It’s not a stretch to see politicians go to the next level, and start banning or restricting viewpoints that contradict official narratives. It’s been talked out before.
One final point: let’s not pretend that this is limited to Trudeau or the Liberals. Had Stephen Harper been re-elected in 2015, he surely would have signed onto it.
Several people recently forwarded this lawsuit from Byram Bridle, filed just before Christmas. He’s a Professor at the University of Guelph, and has had an eventful last few years. The Claim is 73 pages long, demands $3 million, and is interesting…. to say the least.
It’s difficult to know what’s true and exaggerated, simply because it reads like a comedy skit. The Statement of Claim alleges grand conspiracies between the University of Guelph, various employees and administrators, and some “experts” online.
Also, one of the people Bridle sued is a lawyer in that Province. It appears doubtful this will go over well with the Law Society of Ontario, especially given Galati’s $500,000 suit against them and their former intake officer. That one was filed July 2022, and is facing a Rule 21 Motion to Strike.
Allegedly, they’re all working together to financially and professionally destroy Bridle, because…. reasons, or something. It’s never made clear.
On December 19th, 2022, Dr. Byram Bridle issued a Statement of Claim in Ontario Superior Court. The expert vaccinologist, and viral immunologist, states that he has been viciously and falsely attacked by some of his colleagues, with the complicity of the University administration. Some of the Defendants include the President of University of Guelph, Dean Wichtel, Administrator Arnott, Professor Pyle, Professor Weese, and Dr. David Fisman at the University of Toronto.
Also, it’s a bit unclear how to describe Bridle himself. He’s portrayed as an expert in vaccines and immunology, and was developing vaccines against Covid-19. Granted, that doesn’t exist, but that’s another issue. In the same document, he’s a vocal advocate against people getting these shots.
In this scenario, Bridle is about the only rational one. Others are trying to harass, bully, intimidate and crush him. Again, it’s hard to know what’s real, what’s exaggerated, and what’s flat out untrue.
One disturbing trend within the “freedom movement” is that many see nothing wrong with using the Courts to silence people they disagree with. Kulvinder Gill and the Canadian Frontline Nurses are recent examples.
Does Bridle have a valid case? Maybe, but as it’s written, it’s pretty hard to read without laughing. Guess we’ll have to see.
Why Bridle lawsuit will never go anywhere
Aside from the issues noted above, there’s a bigger problem. The Statement of Claim came from the Constitutional Rights Centre, which has a history of filing: (a) very poorly drafted suits; and (b) letting lawsuits sit for months or years without activity.
Here are some recent ones:
Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Her Majesty the Queen, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-00629810-0000. Filed October 2019. No movement since pleadings closed in March 2020.
Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Justin Trudeau, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00643451-0000. Filed July 2020. Single Statement of Defense in August 2022.
Gill & Lamba v. MacIver et al. Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00652918-0000. Filed November 2020. Dismissed as a SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation. Appealed, but status unknown.
Gill v. Attaran & University of Ottawa, Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00658784-0000. Filed March 2021. A Notice of Intent to Defend (not an actual Statement of Defense) was filed in July 2021. No movement since then.
Sgt. Julie Evans, et al v. AG of Ontario, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661200-000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
M.A. and L.A., et al vs. Eileen De Villa, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661284-0000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
Action4Canada, et al vs. Dr. Bonnie Henry, Justin Trudeau, Premier Horgan, et al British Columbia Superior Court # VLC-S-S-217586. Filed August 2021. Struck in its entirety.
Adelberg et al. v. Attorney General et al. Federal Court #T-1089-22. Filed May 2022. Motion to Strike commenced November 2022.
Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba are out at least $1.1 million for a failed $12.75 million defamation suit against 23 individuals and organizations. Their case was predictably dismissed as a SLAPP.
Gill and Lamba bizarrely decided to appeal that dismissal. Given how baseless the original defamation suit was, this will just lead to much larger cost awards when it’s finally thrown out. There had been talk of a second Appeal, one specific to the cost Order.
Gill has another $7 million suit pending against the University of Ottawa, and one of its professors, Amir Attaran. This is even weaker, and vulnerable to another SLAPP Motion.
Action4Canada is currently appealing an August decision to strike the 391 page Notice of Civil Claim in its entirety. Instead of simply drafting it properly, this will waste time and money.
Vaccine Choice Canada’s high profile suit from July 2020 has sat idle since the filing. It’s nearly 200 pages, and contains plenty of irrelevant information that would lead to it getting struck. It’s unclear at this point who has even been served. Note: see below.
Vaccine Choice Canada has an earlier lawsuit from October 2019. The last activity was March 2020, when the pleadings closed. That was over 3 years ago.
Police On Guard arranged for an Application, which was filed on April 20, 2021, nearly 2 years ago. It sits dormant, with no activity whatsoever. It’s disjointed and nearly impossible to understand.
Children’s Health Defense (Canada), also has an Application from April 20, 2021. It’s essentially a cut and paste of the Police of Guard version. It too has sat dormant for almost 2 years.
This is not the work of people who are truly committed to seeing their cases through. These seem much more like placeholders. There’s no reason to assume Bridle’s case will be treated with any urgency.
Finally movement with Vaccine Choice Canada case?
When perusing the Ontario Superior Court SEARCH, this was recently updated for Vaccine Choice. Apparently, there is a case conference set for January 17, 2023, which just a few weeks away.
This was a bit of a surprise, considering that the case was 2 1/2 years old, with no activity. Most likely, this conference is to set down a hearing date for a Motion to Strike. After all, the case is still in its infancy, and is nowhere near ready for a trial. The Parties haven’t yet appeared even a single time.
The 191 page document doesn’t comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure, so this outcome shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. Also see here, and see here.
If the Ontario Attorney General is going to attempt to have this suit thrown out, the above reviews will outline what to expect.
As for the Bridle lawsuit, don’t expect it to go anywhere, anytime soon. It wouldn’t be a shock if it just remained idle for the next 3-5 years.
The group Canadian Frontline Nurses, CFLN, has had their million dollar defamation suit thrown out as a SLAPP. This is of course, short for strategic lawsuit against public participation. This is when the Courts are improperly used to silence speech or expression on public interest discussion.
Note: although the ruling has been handed down, it’s not yet posted publicly. It will be included here when that happens.
CFLN and 3 of its members: (a) Kristen Nagle; (b) Sarah Choujounian; and (c) Kristal Pitter, were all listed as Plaintiffs. They had sough general damages for defamation of $750,000.00, and another $250,000.00 for aggravated, exemplary or punitive damages.
This lawsuit centered around 2 articles. Are they worth $1 million?
Article posted by Canadian Nurses Association, September 9, 2021
Enough is enough: professional nurses stand for science-based health care
The reckless views of a handful of discredited people who identify as nurses have aligned in some cases with angry crowds who are putting public health and safety at risk. They have drawn in anti-science, anti-mask, anti-vaccine, anti-public health followers whose beliefs align with theirs. For some reason they would have us believe that millions of the best educated health scientists, public health experts, physicians and nurses globally have all missed something they have not. Their outlandish assertions about science would be laughable were they not so dangerous.
Now the focus is on images of surly mobs happy to stand in front of health-care settings and harass, threaten, and even assault health-care workers coming and going in the business of saving lives. These protests have stunned and saddened exhausted health-care workers. They are demoralizing, infuriating and dangerous.
Anti-public health disinformation threatens to confuse a tired and bewildered public by deliberately misrepresenting personal ideology as facts, and science as conspiracy. The public should be assured that the vast majority of Canada’s 448,000 regulated nurses are united in their commitment to operate from a stringent code of ethics, and they are duty-bound to use science, evidence, and facts in assessing, planning, and evaluating the care they deliver to people across Canada. This scientific approach is a fundamental ideology of modern nursing.
This portion of an article published by the Canadian Nurses Association was quoted to support the defamation claims against the organization and leadership.
Here’s the problem: nowhere in the article are any of the Plaintiffs named. This is a fatal error in a defamation case, as defamatory speech or expression has to be of the person(s) suing. This article could refer to anyone.
However, the Claim states that they were “referred”, and that should be enough. That’s going to be a very tough sell.
Article posted by Together News/Comox Valley, September 11, 2021
There was another article, this one from Comox Valley. While this one did mention the Plaintiffs by name, it appeared to be referencing (for the most part) quotes that they had made. While the January 6 comments seem out of place, it’s difficult to see how these leads to $1 million in damages.
Statements of Defense laid groundwork for anti-SLAPP Motion
Both documents reference Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, which is the legislation on which anti-SLAPP is based upon. The Defendants signaled that they would be bringing Motions on this. And that’s what they did.
Lawsuits like this actually harm freedom movement
Yes, the “health restrictions” are based on deception and distortions of reality. But this doesn’t help. Considering that these groups claim to be pro-freedom, suing critics makes it difficult to take them seriously.
In December 2020, Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba filed a $12.75 million defamation lawsuit against 23 people and media outlets. It was (predictably) thrown out as a SLAPP. Gill still has another $7 million suit against Amir Attaran and the University of Ottawa.
These kinds of suits have exposed a certain sect of society: there are plenty of people who “claim” to support freedom, and free speech, but who don’t. Instead, we have people who selectively support speech depending on the ideology involved.
Appeal is already being promised
Canadian Frontline Nurses is promising to appeal the SLAPP ruling. This is pointless, as the Ontario Court of Appeal isn’t going to overturn any of this.
Now, are they simply getting very poor advice, or are the donations that come in making it all worthwhile?
Remember the big stories in 2018 when Lindsay Shepherd and Jordan Peterson each sued Wilfrid Laurier University for millions of dollars? There was strangely little to report on for the next 4 years. That’s about to change.
Laurier recently filed an anti-SLAPP Motion.
SLAPP is an acronym for strategic lawsuit against public participation. These are a specific type of suit, ones that are brought (or alleged to have been brought) for the purpose of shutting down public discourse. Laurier’s Motion Record can be obtained from the Ontario Superior Court, and it’s interesting.
Turns out, there’s more to the story.
Lindsay Shepherd sued Laurier in 2018 for a total of $3.6 million. Among other things, she claimed that her prospective career in academia had been ruined by her experience. The suit named: (a) the school itself; (b) Nathan Rambukkana, a professor of communications studies; (c) Herbert Pimlott, also a professor of communications studies; and (d) Adria Joel, the acting manager of gendered violence prevention and support.
June 18, 2018, Jordan Peterson filed a $1.5 million suit against the same Defendants as Shepherd: (a) Wilfrid Laurier; (b) Rambukkana; (c) Pimlott; and (d) Joel. He announced it online as well, making sure there was public knowledge.
Peterson did something else, which was cited in Court papers: he admitted he brought the suit for purposes other than what was filed. He said that he wanted Wilfrid Laurier to be more careful in how they talk about people, and also, that he didn’t think they learned their lesson. These statements have the potential to haunt him later on.
Given how public the suits from Shepherd and Peterson were, the school felt compelled to respond in the same manner. They announced that they thought these proceedings — in particular, Peterson’s — were being used to stifle discussion.
What the Defendants were doing was setting up a defense under Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act. This has been on the books since 2015.
Prevention of Proceedings that Limit Freedom of Expression on Matters of Public Interest (Gag Proceedings)
Dismissal of proceeding that limits debate
Purposes
137.1 (1) The purposes of this section and sections 137.2 to 137.5 are,
(a) to encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest;
(b) to promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest;
(c) to discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and
(d) to reduce the risk that participation by the public in debates on matters of public interest will be hampered by fear of legal action.
Anti-SLAPP legislation exists in Ontario, and other jurisdictions — to prevent the Courts from being weaponized on issues of public interest. The Defendants were going for the argument that this is exactly what was happening with Peterson.
Peterson then decided to sue Wilfrid Laurier a second time.
Note: there is an error with the Court display. The second lawsuit is actually worth $1,750,000, not the $175,000 that is listed.
There is actually a second lawsuit on file for Jordan Peterson. It was filed September 11, 2018. He claims that Laurier’s defense (claiming he brought the initial suit to silence public discussion) amounts to further defamation. He sued again, but this time, it was only against the school itself.
Statements of Defense have been filed concerning both of Peterson’s lawsuits. The first was on August 31, 2018, and the second was on October 11, 2018.
Apparently, publicly raising an anti-SLAPP defense in a public case amounts to further defamation. It’s unclear what made Peterson think this was a good idea.
Anyhow, the university entered some of their correspondence into evidence, and it’s very interesting. All of this is available in the Motion Record. This anti-SLAPP Motion appears to only address the second lawsuit. A likely reason is that this would be a much easier target to get thrown out.
According to the correspondence submitted in the Motion Record, Laurier’s lawyers have found it strange that Peterson has apparently had prolonged health problems. After all, he has been keeping busy with:
Authoring another book
Hosting a podcast
Participating in media interviews to promote his book
Walking several miles a day
It was reasoned that if Peterson is able to do these, then he should be willing to make himself available to be questioned (deposed).
Depositions are routine in major lawsuits. They are also common in anti-SLAPP Motions. Peterson would have to swear out an Affidavit outlining the damages he suffered, and would then be subject to cross-examination. However, this apparently hasn’t happened.
One can speculate as to his motives, but it seems Peterson has bent over backwards to avoid having to testify under oath, or give evidence.
If he were to discontinue the case, it would be a huge blow to his pride. It would be far worse if his cases (either of them) were dismissed as SLAPPs. Having a Judge rule that Peterson commenced litigation to silence public discourse would destroy his reputation as a “free speech champion”.
Peterson can’t bring himself to admit what he did. But he knows the consequences of losing. Therefore, the only option may be to drag it out indefinitely. It’s worth noting that Ontario Superior Court typically dismisses cases that haven’t been set down for Trial after 5 years, unless good cause it shown. Both of his suits are well past the 4 year mark.
And what happened when Peterson sued Laurier the first time? This!
This 2018 tweet from Lindsay Shepherd is pretty comical. After suing her university for $3.6 million, Peterson decides to pile on with another $1.5 million claim. It never seemed to dawn on her that the school might try to defend itself.
By “suing her”, what Laurier actually did was file a 3rd Party Claim. This is a form of a defense, where a Defendant states that they are not responsible for alleged damages, but someone else is. In this case, the school takes the stance that Peterson should actually be suing Shepherd. They have a valid point.
She secretly recorded a private conversation, and turned it into an international story. Regardless of the nonsense in that meeting, she chose to make it public.
Shepherd’s $3.6 million lawsuit doesn’t appear to have gone anywhere either.
Free speech absolutism also doesn’t seem to be a factor. Peterson has shown he’s perfectly okay with de-platforming identitarians, who hold views he disapproves of. The above video was of Faith Goldy being disinvited to a free speech panel. It makes a mockery of the principles he claims to hold.
While Rambukkana, Pimlott and Joel acted like clowns in 2017, Peterson shouldn’t be celebrated. He has demonstrated that he’s quite willing to use the legal system as a weapon.
In the Summer of 2021, Peterson advocated for people to suspend judgement on the lockdown measures that were being implemented across the globe. Vaccine passports were implemented shortly afterwards. Gee, it’s almost as if he knew this would happen.
Despite his reputation, he’s hardly a freedom champion.
Peterson was also denounced as a limited hangout years ago for his refusal to address more complex and controversial subjects. Search “I can’t do it” for just one example of that.
But They Compared Me To Hitler….
In various interviews, Peterson never seems to tire pointing this out. Yes, it was unprofessional, and yes, inappropriate. But there comes a point where he needs to move on.
Peterson has admitted becoming extremely wealthy in the last few years. He went from being an unknown to a household name in a very short amount of time. The incident with Shepherd and Wilfrid Laurier helped immensely.
He would be hard pressed to demonstrate how that November 2017 meeting caused him damages. And remember, it was private. It only became public after Shepherd leaked the audio.
One of the things Plaintiffs in anti-SLAPP Motions must do is prove they have suffered meaningful damages as a result of the speech or expression. If they are just nominal or non-existant, such suits are supposed to be dismissed. This is probably the reason he keeps delaying the case.
This development was covered in the National Post, but the Motion Record wasn’t included.
The Motion should be heard in 2023, to dismiss the second Peterson suit.
What will happen to his first lawsuit? If this initial anti-SLAPP Motion prevails, it seems likely that Laurier will file another to get the original case thrown out. Peterson could potentially lose 2 anti-SLAPP rulings when this is over.
That said, Peterson is now a multimillionaire, so the legal fees shouldn’t be a burden.
