Whistleblower law might help landfill fighters
OTTAWA — A Cantley couple that convinced the Quebec government to close a landfill that is emitting toxic gases in their community expect to become the first people in Canada to use a new law designed to protect whistleblowers.
When Serge Galipeau and his wife, Christine Landry, go to Quebec Superior Court in Gatineau on March 10, they will ask a judge to dismiss a $1.25-million defamation lawsuit filed by landfill owners Denzil Thom and Gilles Proulx in September 2006, on the grounds it violates a new law that protects freedom of speech during debate about public issues.
André Guibord, a spokesman for the landfill owners, said the lawsuit was intended to end lies the couple spread about the business.
“We can’t let people say nonsense out in public without facing the consequences,” Guibord said.
The Quebec National Assembly approved an anti-SLAPP law — short for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation” — on June 3, 2009.
Similar laws have been passed in 26 U.S. states, but it is the only legislation of its kind in Canada.
The Municipality of Cantley evacuated 30 families living within a kilometre of the construction-material landfill near Holmes Road and Highway 307 briefly in March 2005 after the site caught fire and smouldered for months.
The provincial government detected hydrogen sulphide gas in some parts of the dump that experts said was strong enough to kill dump workers within 20 minutes.
A Quebec tribunal closed the landfill on Oct. 15, 2007, because of the emissions.
Galipeau said instruments the Ministry of Environment installed in his backyard showed the gas had exceeded World Health Organization standards more than 13,000 times since 2008.
“The province won’t force the owner to clean up the dump because they say the case is in the hands of lawyers,” Galipeau said. “People still have headaches when there is gas, but most of them have stopped complaining because they are afraid.
“This is an important case for freedom of expression in Quebec. Everybody is afraid to say anything because people like us have to mortgage their houses to fight a lawsuit when they speak out.”
Galipeau said he continues to lobby the Ministry of Environment about the landfill because the site hasn’t been cleaned up and the toxic gas still makes people gag.
He worries about intimidation and installed 12 security cameras inside and around his house after MRC des Collines police told him that three or four unknown men were responsible for smashing two gazebos in his backyard on May 28, 2008.
Lucie Lamarche, a University of Ottawa law professor, said Galipeau’s and Landry’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit will be the first anti-SLAPP case to go before a court in Canada.
“This law started in the United States because you can limit someone’s freedom of expression by a lawsuit,” Lamarche said. “The law is intended to protect freedom of speech and citizen rights.
“The reality of a SLAPP suit is that it kills your economic life and your relations with other people. Galipeau is alone in his village now because he is seen as a threat and people don’t talk to him.”
- Login or register to post comments
-
- Forward this page
Comments
An important test of free speech law
SLAPP suits are a common way of silencing critics by launching against them a lawsuit that may have no merit, but will be ruinously costly to defend. This technique is considered a threat to the public interest since it stifles free speech and legitimate public debate.
This technique has been used against several whistleblowers to our knowledge, but ironically we cannot name the cases here, or FAIR would itself become vulnerable to a SLAPP suit!
Anti-SLAPP legislation enables defendants to mount an effective defense with the possibility of having the suit dismissed quickly and inexpensively.
Canada has no anti-SLAPP legislation except in Quebec: this came into force in June 2009.
David Hutton