Monthly Archives: December 2012

“Mr. Staniford is akin to a zealot” – Part 2

Still a win? That victory the “zealot” Don Staniford has been claiming against Mainstream Canada isn’t one that came cheaply to him or his supporters.

At the end of September, Honourable Madam Justice Adair ruled in favour of Staniford after a 20-day hearing on defamatory statements made by the activist. While the judge agreed the statements were defamatory and that Mr. Staniford was malicious, she added that because he truly believes his statements, his defense of fair comment stands.

Her ruling – though in his favour – certainly portrayed Staniford as a generally gross person. In the public findings, Justice Adair calls him defensive, passive aggressive, obstinate, an unreliable reporter of facts and “akin to a zealot”. (See more on that ruling here)

Despite the clear criticisms of Staniford, the decision was seriously disappointing and Mainstream has appealed the finding. The sting however, has been softened a little by the judge’s findings on cost, released this week.

His behavior during trial was in fact so bad that the Honourable Madam Justice Adair has strayed from the traditional outcome which sees the successful party awarded costs. Nope – because Staniford was, well, himself – she has said he is only eligible for 25 per cent of his costs. Oh, and he owes Mainstream Canada about $8,000 in additional costs because of unwarranted delays he caused.

The findings include a few more insights on Staniford’s personality:

[14] “.. yet another example of what I described as Mr. Staniford’s strong passive aggression. It is Mr. Staniford’s poor substitute for legitimate, good faith criticism.”

[16] “Once again, Mr. Staniford demonstrated that he is a bad listener. His repetition in court and under oath of his ridiculous justification for his sexist and puerile comments …. insulted the intelligence of anyone who had to listen to it.”

[17] “Mr. Staniford seemed to see the trial and the courtroom as simply different venues in his continuing public relations war against industrial aquaculture… As far as Mr. Staniford was concerned, since the trial was simply a different venue, there was therefore no need to modify his behavior in any way. Mr Staniford was wrong.

We don’t understand totally how costs are determined in legal cases, but Staniford has claimed in news stories that his defense cost $100,000- costs he was likely hoping would be covered by Mainstream following his less-than-flattering ‘win’.

Sure, there are likely ‘Salmon Are Sacred’ members who will and have stepped up to help cover this cost. What a waste of money – just think of all the good they could do with their money, rather than supporting this childish bully.