You are on page 1of 9

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

BETWEEN:

MR. JOHN MIDDLETON


PLAINTIFF
AND
THE WINDSOR STAR (A DIVISION OF POST MEDIA INC.)
MR. MARTY BENETEAU
MR. CHRIS VANDER DOELEN
MR. DOUG SCHMIDT
DEFENDANTS
STATEMENT OF CLAIM

TO THE DEFENDANTS
A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the plaintiff.
The claim made against you is set out in the following pages.
IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario lawyer acting for you must
prepare a statement of defence in Form 18A prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, serve it on the
plaintiffs lawyer or, where the plaintiff does not have a lawyer, serve it on the plaintiff, and file it, with
proof of service in this court office, WITHIN TWENTY DAYS after this statement of claim is served on
you, if you are served in Ontario.
If you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the United States of America, the
period for serving and filing your statement of defence is forty days. If you are served outside Canada
and the United States of America, the period is sixty days.
Instead of serving and filing a statement of defence, you may serve and file a notice of intent to
defend in Form 18B prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. This will entitle you to ten more days
within which to serve and file your statement of defence.
IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST
YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU. IF YOU WISH TO
DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING BUT ARE UNABLE TO PAY LEGAL FEES, LEGAL AID MAY BE
AVAILABLE TO YOU BY CONTACTING A LOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE.
IF YOU PAY THE PLAINTIFFS CLAIM, and $1,500.00 for costs, within the time for serving and
filing your statement of defence you may move to have this proceeding dismissed by the court. If you

believe the amount claimed for costs is excessive, you may pay the plaintiffs claim and $400 for costs
and have the costs assessed by the court.
TAKE NOTICE: THIS ACTION WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE DISMISSED if it has not been set
down for trial or terminated by any means within five years after the action was commenced unless
otherwise ordered by the court.
Date ........................................................................... Issued
by ...........................................................................
Local registrar
Address of
court
office .........................................................................

.....................................................................
....

TO

The Windsor Star, Division of PostMedia Inc., 300 Ouellette Ave, Windsor, ON N9A 7B4
Mr. Marty Beneteau, 300 Ouellette Ave, Windsor, ON N9A 7B4
Mr. Chris VanderDoelen, 300 Ouellette Ave, Windsor, ON N9A 7B4
Mr. Doug Schmidt, 300 Ouellette Ave, Windsor, ON N9A 7B4

CLAIM
1. The plaintiff claims against the defendant:
I.

Damages for intentional and/or negligent infliction of mental suffering, and


defamation in the amount of $25,000.00;

II.

1.

Punitive, exemplary, and/or aggravated damages in the amount of $25,000.00;

III.

Costs of this action on a substantial indemnity basis;

IV.

Such further relief and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.

Marty Beneteau is Editor-in-Chief of The Windsor Star, A Division of Post Media Inc, which
produces the local newspaper, The Windsor Star with a circulation of approximately 80,000 in
addition to electronic circulation of The Windsor Star (www.windsorstar.com) which includes
sharing technology, including but not limited to, Twitter, Facebook, etc.

2. As Editor-In-Chief, Mr. Beneteau oversees and is responsible for all published content at the
Windsor Star, both electronically and in printed form.

3.

As Editor-In-Chief, Mr. Beneteau is held to the journalistic ethics as outlined by the Canadian
Association of Journalists website located at http://www.caj.ca/ethics-guidelines/.

4. On or about April 7, 2015, the plaintiff became aware of an article, Campaign Expense Gaps
Revealed, that appeared Saturday, March 28, 2015 and written by Mr. Vander Doelen.

5. Mr. Vander Doelen wrote, "Ward 5 Candidate John Middleton listed no expenses other than the
$100 filing fee, even though he towed a campaign sign all over town while losing to re-elected

Coun. Ed Sleiman. Campaign materials such as signs cannot be claimed as free, even if the
candidate produces them himself (Middleton owns a sign company) or has them left over from a
previous campaign. They must be listed as a donation in kind, according to section 3 of the
Ontario Municipal Elections Act.
6. At no time did Mr.Vander Doelen seek to substantiate or refute the claim the plaintiff, towed a
campaign sign all over town by contacting the plaintiff by telephone, leaving a message or by
any other electronic means, including fax or email, before publication in both the print and
electronic versions of The Windsor Star on Saturday, March 28, 2015.
7. Additionally, Mr. Vander Doelen implies because the plaintiff only listed $100 in expenses, the
plaintiffs sign company, ABC Signs, either produced the sign for free or that the plaintiff reused the sign(s) from a previous election campaign.
8. Furthermore, Mr. Vander Doelen, by failing to contact for comment and through implication,
leaves readers to infer the plaintiff violated the Municipal Elections Act.
9. These claims and inferences are false.
10. Effectively, Mr. Vander Doelen claims, by implication, the plaintiff (1) falsified expense claims,
(2) violated the Municipal Elections Act and (3) the plaintiffs company, ABC Signs, violated
the Municipal Elections Act.
11. The plaintiff did not falsify expense claims; did not violate the Municipal Elections Act, nor did
the plaintiffs company, ABC signs, violate the Municipal Elections Act and any claim
otherwise, either implied or inferred is malicious in intent and libellous.
12. The Plaintiff is aware of the substantial risk such violations the Municipal Elections Act pose for
both his person and his company.
13. Section 92 of the Municipal Elections Act outlines the penalties for breach of the Act including
imprisonment for up to six months, or fines of up to $25,000.

14. On or about April 7, 2015, the plaintiff also became aware of an article in The Windsor Star,
Election filing deadline looms for officials, written by Windsor Star journalist, Mr. Doug
Schmidt and published Tuesday, March 24, 2015.
15. Mr. Schmidt wrote, "Signs are a big expense for most candidates, for example, covering more
than a third of Ward 5 winner Ed Sleimans $14, 038.07 in total campaign costs. The financial
statement for Ward 5 candidate John Middleton, owner of a sign company who prominently
towed his campaign sign around town, listed a single entry his $100 nomination filing fee.
16. Furthermore, Mr. Schmidt reported, [Mr. Chuck Scarpelli, Manager of Records and Elections,
City of Windsor] Scarpelli said any elector can apply to the citys compliance audit committee to
go over a candidates financial statements. However, if the committee orders an audit as a result
and nothing is subsequently found, city council can then recover those audit costs from the
applicant.
17. Mr. Schmidts claim that, Ward 5 candidate John Middleton, owner of a sign company who
prominently towed his campaign sign around town is false.
18. The plaintiff, at no time used, reused or otherwise produced any campaign sign for his 2014
Election Campaign.
19. Mr. Schmidt implies the plaintiff must have falsified his sworn financial statements by
comparing the plaintiffs sole expense of a $100 filing fee with those of an incumbent councillor,
Mr. Ed Sleiman.
20. At no time did Mr. Schmidt seek to substantiate or refute the claim the plaintiff, towed a
campaign sign all over town by contacting the plaintiff by telephone, leaving a message or by
any other electronic means, including fax or email, before publication in both the print and
electronic versions of The Windsor Star on Tuesday, March 24, 2015.
21. Furthermore, Mr. Schmidt, by failing to contact for comment maliciously and libellously implies
the plaintiff violated the Municipal Elections Act.

22. Finally, the plaintiff has not received any communication, summons or order from the Citys
Election Compliance Audit Committee.
23. Any complaints with respect to election campaign expenses must be filed within 90 days after
the candidates deadline to file election finance reports which was March 27, 2015 (Section 81,
Municipal Elections Act of Ontario).
24. The deadline to file any complaint to the Compliance Audit Committee was June 25, 2015.
25. The plaintiff did not falsify expense claims; did not violate the Municipal Elections Act, nor did
the plaintiffs company, ABC signs, violate the Municipal Elections Act and any claim
otherwise, either implied or inferred is malicious in intent and libellous.
26. The Plaintiff is aware of the substantial risk such violations the Municipal Elections Act pose for
both his person and his company.
27. Section 92 of the Municipal Elections Act outlines the penalties for breach of the Act including
imprisonment, or fines of up to $25,000.
28.

On May 8th, 2015, after learning of the above mentioned news story and opinion piece, the
plaintiff sent two letters to the defendants advising of the issues outlined in this claim.

29. The plaintiff proposed three remedies to avoid legal action: (1) A written apology to the plaintiff
from Mr. Doug Schmidt and Mr. Chris Vander Doelen; (2) A published retraction of the
erroneous claims made by both of the aforementioned; and (3) A small monetary donation to a
charity of the plaintiffs choosing.
30. Mr. Beneteau provided two separate responses in that the journalists stood by their claims and
that there were credible witnesses supporting the claims.

31. Since the plaintiff has received no communication, summons or order from the Citys
Compliance Audit Committee, and further neither Mr. Schmidt nor Mr. Vander Doelen exercised

their ethical duty or due diligence to contact the plaintiff before publication, both the claims
made, and the credibility and intent of the alleged witnesses are in question.
32. The Canadian Association of Journalists (CAJ) website states journalists are, disciplined in our
efforts to verify all facts. Accuracy is the moral imperative of journalists and news organizations,
and should not be compromised, even by pressing deadlines of the 24-hour news cycle.
33. Furthermore the CAJ states, We give people, companies or organizations that are publicly
accused or criticized opportunity to respond before we publish those criticisms or accusations.
We make a genuine and reasonable effort to contact them, and if they decline to comment, we
say so.
34. Despite being publically accused of egregious violations of the Municipal Elections Act, the
defendants gave no opportunity for the plaintiff to respond to allegations and/or claims before
publication, and made no genuine and reasonable effort to contact him.
35. Therefore, Mr. Beneteau knew or should have known the opinion piece of Mr. Vander Doelen
and the news story of Mr. Schmidt were incomplete and not only inaccurate, but factually
incorrect as well.
36. Mr. Beneteau knew, or should have known, the plaintiff was not contacted for comment
regarding the allegations presented by both Mr. Vander Doelen and Mr. Schmidt.
37. Thus, Mr. Beneteau knew, or should have known, the opinion piece of Mr. Vander Doelen and
the news story of Mr. Schmidt, were both unethical and libellous.
38. The Plaintiff pleads and relies on the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used in the
online and newspaper publications which are prima facie defamatory and false.
39. By express terms and innuendo, the Plaintiff was depicted as a businessman who not only
violates, but disregards the law.

40. The claims made by both Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Vander Doelen are defamatory which were
knowingly false and/or made with reckless disregard for the truth and/or with malicious intent,
with the goal of diminishing the reputation of the Plaintiff.
41. The Plaintiff pleads that this is an appropriate case for punitive, aggravated and or exemplary
damages. In particular, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, these actions include
the following:
(i)

there is a persistent, willful and repeated pattern of publishing known falsehood;

(ii)

a repeated attempt at character assassination;

(iii)

intentional dissemination of false information;

(iv)

publishing statements and/or claims with reckless indifference to whether they are
true or not;

(v)

knowingly arriving at unreasonable conclusions without making any genuine or


reasonable effort to confirm or refute the facts;

(vi)

knowingly misleading the public by failing to present a fair representation based


on all the information;

(vii)

Refusing to correct, retract or discontinue publication of the false and defamatory


statements plead herein.

1. Mr. John Middleton relies upon the Negligence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.1. as amended; the Libel
and Slander Act R.S.O. 1990, Chapter L.12 as amended; and the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O.
1990, e. C.43, as amended.

Dated: August 15, 2015


John Middleton
1691 St Luke
Windsor, Ont
n8y 3n4

Allegations presented in this document have not been proven in court.


Statement of Claim is subject to section 6. of the Libel and Slander ACT R.S.O. 1990

You might also like