Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUMMARY
Anti-SLAPP
Bill:
requested
amendments
include
making
Bill
52
retroactive;
placing
the
onus
on
the
Plaintiff
to
prove
the
lawsuit
isnt
a
SLAPP;
as
well
it
should
specify
timelines
for
filing
of
responding
affidavits
by
the
Plaintiff.
PRESENTATION
Thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
speak.
As
someone
facing
a
SLAPP
suit,
Im
relieved
to
see
Bill
52
finally
reach
this
stage
in
enactment.
Even
so,
Im
frustrated
that
it
provides
no
protection
for
those
presently
facing
lawsuits.
I
ask
this
body
to
strike
the
amendment
made
last
December,
which
removed
the
retroactive
clause,
so
the
bill
honors
the
statement
made
by
former
Attorney
General
John
Gerretson
to
MPP
McNaughton
in
June
2013.
"If
Bill
83
is
passed,"
wrote
Mr.
Gerretson,
"the
rule
will
apply
to
suits
brought
before
the
bill
comes
into
force.
Commenting
on
the
amendment
that
contradicts
and
guts
the
bill,
Gerretson
has
this
to
say.
Obviously
the
bill
is
weaker
than
the
one
we
originally
introduced,
while
adding,
I
have
no
specific
comment
as
to
why
the
retroactive
protection
is
gone
except
[to
say]
it
probably
shouldn't
be
gone."
I
agree
completely;
it
"shouldn't
be
gone."
{pause}
To
say
Im
a
married
mother
of
two,
formerly
from
rural
Ontario,
until
over
200
wind
turbines
arrived
--
saying
this
doesnt
offend
anyone.
Notice,
I
deliberately
left
out
my
opinion
and
anything
that
might
stir
emotion
and
judgment
in
others.
However,
when
I
say,
the
wind
energy
company,
NextEra,
dominated
my
homeland,
destroyed
wildlife
and
its
habitat,
struck
anger,
fear,
and
terror
in
my
community,
so
much
so
that
many
residents
called
them
NexTerror
in
daily
conversation,
people
begin
to
say
Ah
ah,
Esther
You
cant
use
that
word,
terror!
Why,
I
ask?
The
answer
I
get
is,
because
thats
pushing
it."
"Just
use
something
less
controversial,"
I'm
told.
NextEra
sued
me
for
using
the
word
"terror"
in
an
image
posted
on
the
website
I
manage,
Ontario
Wind
Resistance,
and
on
the
videos
of
this
wind
developer
destroying
an
active
bald
eagle
nest
in
Haldimand
County.
After
being
served,
I
asked
others
what
they
would
do
in
my
position.
Almost
everyone
agreed
I
was
in
the
right.
Then
nearly
all
of
them
said
they
would
stop
using
the
word
and
image
made
of
"NexTerror,"
because
they
wouldnt
want
to
risk
everything
they
had,
and
years
of
their
life
would
wasted
in
a
court
battle.
All
over
a
single
word.
NextEra
had
thought
this
through.
They
realized
there
was
a
99%
chance
I
would
just
stop
using
the
term
and
parodied
image,
because
thats
what
usually
happens
when
they
lay
a
letter
on
an
opponent
of
theirs.
SLAPP
suits
are
cheap
and
effective,
and
as
long
as
the
person
SLAPPed
is
scared
or
humiliated,
the
corporation
doesn't
even
risk
bad
publicity.
It
takes
a
certain
amount
of
nerve
to
be
the
1%
who
refuses
to
accede
to
their
demands,
but
that
doesnt
mean
the
stress,
the
burden
and
the
impact
of
a
SLAPP
doesnt
hit
the
defendant
just
as
hard.
That
1%
would
no
doubt
be
higher
if
there
was
someone
to
back
them
up
--
a
judge
to
say,
This
lawsuit
has
no
merit,
thus
allowing
the
defendant
to
walk
away
unscathed
with
their
free
speech
intact.
But
when
the
burden
is
put
entirely
on
the
defendant,
as
it
is
currently
throughout
this
province,
there
is
no
win
for
them,
no
matter
how
the
suit
plays
out.
Under
the
present
law,
courts
will
never
question
NextEras
integrity
on
this
lawsuit.
Meanwhile,
the
lawsuit
has
remained
a
landmine
for
two
and
a
half
years.
If
I
have
damaged
them
so
horribly,
as
they
claim
in
their
suit,
why
havent
they
pursued
it?
The
answer
is
obvious:
Because
there
is
no
proof
of
damage.
Just
the
opposite,
NextEra
has
prospered
in
Ontario
recently,
having
been
given
contracts
to
produce
a
fifth
of
the
wind
power
in
the
province.
They
can
smile
and
hold
their
thumb
over
the
detonator
on
this
legal
landmine,
knowing
there
is
no
chance
of
a
judge
reprimanding
them
or
calling
THEM
out
on
costs.
Legally,
they
can
do
this
for
5
long
years.
I
can
tell
you,
thats
a
long
time.
Im
only
half
way
through
waiting.
There
is
really
no
logical
reason
why
the
lawsuits
against
me,
and
other
current
SLAPP
victims,
are
denied
legal
protection
under
Bill
52.
Ms.
Wynnes
office
told
a
Canadaland
reporter
that
it
was
for
fairness
to
litigants
already
before
the
court,
and
to
avoid
distraction
from
the
important
public
interest
purpose
of
the
legislation."
Both
of
these
reasons
are
weak,
simplistic
and
lack
a
true
understanding
of
what
it
means
to
protect
ALL
speech
and
expression.
When
we
are
trying
to
stop
harm
from
occurring,
we
dont
say
we
will
only
help
those
who
were
hurt
after
September
24,
2015,
or
those
who
are
under
45
years
old,
or
those
who
live
in
the
905
area
code.
No,
we
help
all,
we
protect
all.
Nor
should
protection
be
denied
in
order
for
the
government
to
be
fair
to
the
instigator
of
toxic
SLAPP
suits.
Right
now
the
system
is
set
up
to
be
unreasonably
accommodating
and
compliant
to
corporations
like
NextEra,
while
providing
zero
recourse
for
their
victims.
THATs
what
Bill
52
is
supposed
to
fix.
As
for
current
litigants
being
distracting
to
the
debate
this
is
nonsense.
Debate
is
the
bedrock
of
any
healthy
democracy.
To
silence
voices,
especially
voices
with
experience,
is
rank
censorship.
What
kind
of
law
is
changed
to
deny
a
person
access
to
justice
because
their
case
is
distracting
to
a
debate?
The
present
regime
should
not
be
deciding
whether
I'm
"good
enough"
or
"sued
currently
enough"
to
have
access
to
justice.
This
is
the
job
of
a
judge.
The
court
asks
specific
legal
questions,
and
from
that
it
determines
whether
or
not
to
throw
the
case
out.
This
amendment
to
Bill
52
is
effectively
telling
citizens,
We
believe
in
free
speech,
but
only
after
the
Bill
receives
Royal
Assent.
We
believe
in
free
speech,
but
only
if
it
is
fair
to
the
Plaintiff
of
the
SLAPP
suit.
We
believe
in
free
speech,
but
only
if
your
lawsuit
hasnt
been
distracting
to
our
debate.
As
others
before
me
have
said,
the
moment
you
limit
free
speech,
its
not
free
speech.
I
know,
for
my
family,
that
this
lawsuit
minus
anti-SLAPP
protection,
will
continue
to
harm
us
until
2018.
As
a
mother
and
a
sole
provider
for
my
family,
do
I
risk
buying
a
home?
Do
I
risk
taking
over
the
family
plant
nursery?
And
if
not,
how
employable
is
a
person
where
a
quick
Google
search
shows
there
is
a
huge
lawsuit
directed
against
her?
Do
I
risk
opening
my
mouth
again?
I
am
forced
to
wrestle
with
these
questions
daily.
Ladies
and
gentlemen,
thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
speak
freely.
Esther
Wrightman
St.
Andrews,
NB
WRITTEN
STATEMENT
Bill
52:
Protection
of
Public
Participation
Act
When
it
comes
down
to
it,
the
true
purpose
of
Bill
52
is
to
cultivate
and
protect
free
speech
and
expression
throughout
society.
But
the
amendment
made
to
this
Bill
in
late
2014
that
removed
the
retroactive
clause,
resulted
in
only
a
selection
of
defendants
who
can
now
be
protected,
while
the
other
few
current
litigants
are
excluded
and
must
fend
for
themselves.
Im
one
of
those
current
litigants
that
Kathleen
Wynnes
office
said
needed
to
be
eliminated,
and
from
this
perspective
Ill
explain
why
I
ask
this
body
to
strike
the
amendment
made
last
December,
so
the
bill
honors
the
statement
made
by
Attorney
General
John
Gerretsen
to
MPP
McNaughton
in
June
20131.
"If
Bill
83
is
passed,"
wrote
Mr.
Gerretsen,
"the
rule
will
apply
to
suits
brought
before
the
bill
comes
into
force.
The
Premiers
office
claimed
the
change
was
made
for
the
following
reasons2:
1. Fairness
to
litigants
already
before
the
court:
The
government
changed
the
application
provision
from
the
previous
legislation
on
the
principle
that
it
was
fair
to
people
who
started
litigation
to
have
recourse
to
the
rules
in
force
at
the
time
the
lawsuit
was
initiated
rather
than
have
the
rules
change
in
mid-
process.
While
this
was
not
something
that
was
contemplated
prior
to
the
initial
introduction,
retroactive
rule-making
(as
a
matter
of
procedural
fairness)
is
generally
not
something
that
is
seen
favourably
by
courts
and
legislatures.
2. Distraction
from
the
important
public
interest
purpose
of
the
legislation:
While
the
legislation
was
widely
supported
by
all
parties
in
the
legislature
(although
the
PCs
voted
against
Bill
83
at
second
reading),
the
discussion
of
the
legislation
following
introduction
became
clouded
by
the
interests
of
a
few
current
litigants
and
not
the
individual
citizens
whose
voices
had
been
silenced
due
to
fear
of
SLAPP
suits.
We
also
heard
from
many
proponents
of
the
bill
that
the
discussion
of
ongoing
litigation
was
distracting
from
the
important
issues
underlying
the
legislation.
In
my
eyes,
as
a
current
litigant,
this
is
how
the
reasons
read
to
me:
1
Gerretsen
to
McNaughton
letter
June,
2013:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/151388309/Attorney-General-Gerretsen-Reply-Re-Bill-83
2
Canadaland,
March
24,
2015
http://canadalandshow.com/article/wynne-waters-
down-own-bill-benefiting-own-libel-suit
Why
should
this
Bill
be
more
fair
to
a
corporation
that
instigates
a
toxic
SLAPP
suit,
while
the
victim
receives
no
support
at
all?
Right
now
the
system
is
set
up
to
be
unreasonably
accommodating
and
compliant
to
the
Plaintiff,
while
providing
zero
recourse
for
the
Defendants.
THATs
what
Bill
52
is
supposed
to
fix.
We
should
not
be
revering
the
litigant
that
is
abusing
the
legal
system.
Perhaps
this
is
happening
because
generally
these
corporations
that
file
SLAPPs
have
money,
and
lobbyists
in
Queens
Park.
The
corporation
that
sued
me
(NextEra
Energy)
has
at
least
five3.
And
what
does
it
take
for
a
current
litigant
to
now
bring
an
end
to
a
SLAPP
suit?
They
have
to
wait
out
the
5
years
in
hopes
it
disapears,
or
perhaps
even
go
through
the
lengthy
and
costly
court
process,
or
even
contemplate
counter
suing,
doubling
the
legal
burden
and
costs
on
them.
We
dont
use
outdated
laws
to
govern
old
crimes.
We
use
todays
standards,
thankfully.
The
same
process
should
be
followed
for
Bill
52
so
everyone
is
able
to
benefit
from
the
new
anti
SLAPP
legislation.
When
we
are
trying
to
stop
harm
from
occurring,
we
dont
say
we
will
only
help
those
who
were
hurt
after
a
certain
date,
or
are
a
certain
age,
or
live
in
a
specific
area
only.
Even
if
it
makes
it
slightly
more
difficult
for
the
courts
to
handle,
thats
okay,
because
at
least
the
RIGHT
thing
is
being
done.
As
for
the
concern
over
the
interests
of
a
few
current
litigants
-
they
should
not
make
any
difference
to
the
building
of
a
soundly
principled
Bill.
Having
read
all
the
debates,
not
once
did
I
feel
it
was
clouded
by
any
party
or
litigant.
What
bothers
me
even
more
is
that
this
reasoning
completely
disregards
the
whole
purpose
of
Bill
52
speech/expression/interests
are
being
purposely
stifled
by
the
addition
of
this
amendment.
To
silence
voices,
especially
voices
with
experience,
is
rank
censorship.
What
kind
of
law
is
changed
to
deny
a
person
access
to
justice
because
their
case
is
distracting
to
a
debate?
3
NextEra
Lobbyists:
https://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/Pages/Public/PublicSearch/SearchResults.aspx
Common
sense
says
the
actual
lives
and
opinions
of
Ontario
residents
should
matter
more
than
the
interests
of
these
foreign
corporations
that
choose
to
rule
with
lawfare.
Please
make
the
adjustments
to
this
Bill
so
that
it
can
be
used
by
all
who
are
affected
by
SLAPP
suits.
This
bill
should
also
reverse
the
onus
of
proof.
The
Plaintiff
should
have
to
prove
that
the
suit
is
not
being
brought
to
silence
public
participation.
It
should
also
specify
timelines
for
filing
of
responding
affidavits
by
the
plaintiff
as
the
panel
recommended
in
2010.
Delays
to
the
hearing
of
the
motion
only
work
in
favour
of
the
plaintiff.
Ive
attached
two
letters
from
earlier
this
year
to
the
MPPs,
as
well
as
background
information
on
the
lawsuit
I
face.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration
of
this
issue.
Yours
truly,
Esther
Wrightman
St.
Andrews,
NB
Attached:
Background
Letter
to
Attorney
General
February
23,
2015
Letter
to
Attorney
General
March
26,
2015
Background
When
I
was
first
hit
with
a
SLAPP
suit
it
felt
more
like
a
ruthless
joke
than
a
true
legal
action.
As
the
years
wear
on,
I
see
its
a
combination
of
these
that
has
serious
implications
on
those
hit
with
such
lawsuits.
Right
now,
Im
in
a
stalemate
with
Florida
based
wind
energy
developer
NextEra
Energy.
They
sued
me4
on
May
1st,
2013
for
a
long
list
of
items
that
fall
under
Trademark,
Copyright,
Competition,
Injurious
Falsehood,
Trade
Libel,
and
Appropriation
of
an
Insignia.
What
had
I
done?
Several
months
previous
I
filmed
this
company
cutting
down
an
active
Bald
Eagle
nest
in
Haldimand
County5
(there
were
only
58
nests
in
SW
Ontario)
so
that
they
could
build
roadways
to
three
of
their
wind
turbines
that
had
yet
to
be
constructed.
I
pushed
the
video
up
to
YouTube,
along
with
a
parodied
image
of
the
companys
logo
as
Nexterror.
This
parody
had
been
used
on
my
website
for
a
year
already,
and
previous
to
this,
the
name
Nexterror
had
been
used
within
my
community
quite
freely
as
we
were
recipients
of
all
the
terrors
and
errors
this
company
made
it
had
become
common
language
in
rural
Ontario,
I
just
illustrated
it.
4
Statement
of
Claim:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/145340593/Statement-of-Claim-
Nextera-Energy-ULC-v-Esther-Wrightman
5
NextEra
destroys
bald
eagle
nest
video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtF6TUYfj8c
A
short
while
later
a
letter
arrived6
telling
me
to
remove
the
two
movies
about
the
eagle
nest
destruction
one
of
which
did
not
even
have
the
parodied
image
on
it7,
I
guess
they
were
shooting
high
to
see
how
much
could
be
brought
down
with
one
legal
letter.
I
refused.8
Then
they
sued.
This
is
when
the
work
and
stress
really
starts
to
happen
for
the
Defendant.
All
of
a
sudden
you
have
to
figure
out
how
to
write
and
file
a
Statement
Defense
in
20
days.
Maybe
for
the
average
lawyer
that
isnt
such
a
big
deal,
but
for
a
mom
who
works
at
a
plant
nursery,
and
lives
4
hours
away
from
Toronto
where
it
was
filed,
those
were
very
long
and
intense
days
that
did
not
involve
any
family
or
outside
work.
I
asked
and
received
a
much-needed
extra
week
from
NextEras
lawyer
to
complete
it.
My
Defense9
was
filed
on
May
27,
2013
and
I
did
not
hear
another
word
from
NextEra
until
December,
2013
when
they
requested
an
exchange
Affidavits10.
I
responded
asking
that
they
please
wait
until
after
Christmas
I
was
just
finishing
a
4
month
grueling
Environmental
Review
Tribunal
hearing
on
their
Adelaide
wind
project
around
my
home,
and
they
knew
I
was
weakened,
and
perhaps
wanted
to
see
if
I
would
give
in
and
do
anything
they
said
to
make
the
lawsuit
stress
go
away.
Two
other
wind
projects
had
just
been
approved
at
this
time
around
my
house,
so
there
was
the
added
pressure
to
appeal
them
as
well,
but
I
had
completely
run
out
of
time
and
energy.
I
never
heard
from
NextEra
again.
Eventually
they
even
stopped
commenting
to
reporters
on
the
case.
We
continued
to
appeal
and
protest,
but
all
of
their
hundreds
of
wind
turbines
went
up
around
us,
and
not
wanting
to
live
in
this
new
industrial
zone,
risking
the
negative
health
effects
that
we
saw
happen
to
so
many
others
around
us,
my
family
packed
up
and
moved
to
New
Brunswick.
No,
this
wasnt
a
light
decision
to
move,
I
was
born
and
raised
there,
and
my
family
had
lived
in
the
rural
6
Cease
and
Desist
letter:
http://ontario-wind-resistance.org/2013/04/03/nexterror-
energy-sent-me-a-cease-and-desist-demand-what-would-you-do/
7
Second
video:
NextEra
Energy
in
damage
control
mode
on
Eagle
Nest
removal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNh-_3Z6y7c
8
Letter
to
NextEra:
http://ontario-wind-resistance.org/2013/04/08/cease-desist-for-
nexterror-energy-no-thanks/
9
Statement
of
Defence:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/145427083/Statement-of-
Defence-NextEra-Energy-ULC-v-Esther-Wrightman
10
NextEras
last
letter
Dec.
4,
2013
https://www.scribd.com/doc/190442818/Wrightman-NextEra-Re-Exchange-of-
Documents-Dec-4-2013
areas
nearby
for
hundreds
of
years
I
fought
for
6
years
so
we
wouldnt
have
to
leave.
Only
NextEra
now
has
the
power
to
proceed
or
drop
the
action,
and
two
and
half
years
later
they
still
havent
advanced
beyond
filing
the
Claim.
In
fact
its
been
almost
two
years
since
their
last
correspondence
with
me.
Say
nothing.
Do
nothing.
Just
hold
the
lawsuit
there
for
the
time
allowed
five
long
years.
If
NextEra
chooses
to
ignore
the
straight
and
logical
suggestion
to
drop
the
suit,
and
Bill
52
remains
without
retroactivity
we
will
have
to
face
either
another
2
years
of
waiting,
or
possibly
a
very
nasty
court
battle
with
no
SLAPP
protection.
I
hope
neither
is
the
case,
because
my
family
is
tired,
and
I
long
for
a
life
that
isnt
clouded
over
by
this
malicious
action.
What
frustrates
me
is
that
although
NextEra
claimed
harm,
they
never
proved
it.
But
this
court
action
has
in
turn
put
the
harm
on
my
former
community,
who
are
less
likely
to
be
activists
now
for
fear
of
a
similar
action
hitting
them
personally.
The
Canadian
Civil
Liberties
Association
shares
some
of
my
concerns
of
this
lawsuit
as
well.
It
is
wounding
my
family,
for
the
many
reasons
Ive
listed
in
the
letter
to
the
MPPs
below,
and
it
damages
my
future
that
is
clouded
by
being
an
individual
who
dared
to
say
no
to
their
demands
to
be
silent.
Harm
is
now
aimed
one
way
and
that
is
at
the
defendant.
10
11
phone
or
in
e-mails
one
neighbor
wouldnt
even
say
the
word
lawsuit
to
me
on
the
phone.
Perhaps
irrational
reactions,
but
this
is
the
knee
jerk
response
people
had
they
didnt
want
to
be
taken
down
by
this
corporation
they
fully
supported
me
but
were
frightened
that
the
same
could
happen
to
anyone
who
spoke
ill
of
this
company.
It
was
frustrating
for
me
as
it
hampered
the
frank
discussions
I
would
have
with
people
NextEra
had
yet
again
succeeded
in
their
local
terror
tactics,
frightening
opposition
into
silence.
Tense
relationships:
My
son
came
home
from
elementary
school
one
day
and
told
me
a
boy
on
the
bus
said,
your
mom
is
an
idiot
for
getting
sued.
Because
everyone
who
gets
sued
is
guilty,
a
corporation
couldnt
be
in
the
wrong,
could
it?
I
felt
terrible
for
him,
having
to
defend
my
right
to
speak
for
the
community,
which
was
now
in
tatters
from
all
the
wind
company
cement
trucks
and
blades
moving
in
(over
200
turbines
went
up
in
Lambton-
Middlesex
last
year).
But
you
can
see
how
being
associated
with
a
person
who
is
sued
is
damaging.
Repressed
voices:
Ontario-Wind-Resistance.org
still
has
a
perfectly
legit
satirical
image
of
NextEra
on
it,
but
it
is
now
hosted
in
Iceland
where
Freedom
of
Expression
is
practiced
and
protected
with
legislation.
Since
there
is
a
lawsuit
connected
to
the
NexTerror
image
it
is
not
a
site
that
I
feel
comfortable
handing
over
to
another
individual
to
operate
it
just
wouldnt
be
right
to
drag
another
person
into
this
revolting
mess.
So
the
lawsuit
has
also
restricted
others
from
becoming
directly
involved
for
fear
they
would
be
attacked
with
lawfare.
And
Ive
moved.
Out
of
the
province
to
small
town
New
Brunswick.
Did
the
lawsuit
force
me
to
move?
Yes,
partly.
Did
NextEra,
Suncor,
WPD
and
the
Ontario
government
force
me
to
move?
Absolutely.
I
never
in
my
life
dreamed
of
moving
from
the
home
and
farm
I
was
raised
on.
Fighting
with
every
bone
in
me
for
the
last
6
years
was
hard
enough,
without
a
lawsuit
piled
on
top
of
it.
NextEra
knew
exactly
what
it
was
doing.
A
huge
corporation
pretended
to
play
victim
in
their
Statement
of
Claim
theyve
been
anything
but
a
victim.
The
lawsuit
is
to
be
two
years
old
in
a
few
months,
and
I
haven't
heard
form
NextEra
in
over
a
year.
They
like
where
they
sit
right
now:
me
handicapped
with
a
pending
lawsuit,
and
they
can
continue
to
operate
business
as
usual
now
that
the
population
is
silenced.
No
skin
off
their
back.
With
the
change
in
the
wording
of
Bill
52
I
will
continue
to
sit
in
SLAPP
suit
limbo
for
years
and
years
to
come,
denied
simple
protection
from
the
Ontario
government
unless
the
Bill
is
amended
to
cover
ALL
affected
persons,
not
just
those
who
will
be
sued
later.
I
ask
that
members
of
legislature
review
Bill
52
with
this
in
mind,
knowing
that
there
are
many
others
who
are
in
the
same
abandoned
predicament
and
look
to
you
to
make
the
changes
to
this
Bill
so
that
it
is
fair,
accessible
and
just
for
everyone.
12
Yours
truly,
Esther
Wrightman
St.
Andrews,
NB
13
14