Subject: Repeated Requests: please specify what is defamatory. Culminates in Court filing. Took 8 months to obtain specifics. Could not file Statement of Defence without it.
A Court Document “Request for Particulars” was filed on August 31, 2015 after months of attempting to obtain from the Plaintiff: “please specify what is defamatory”. It was, of course, expected that legal criteria for defamation would be met.
The documentation below:
From my first lawyer, Daniel Reid (Harper Grey, Vancouver) to Ashu’s lawyer, Tyler Dahl (Cuelenaere, Saskatoon). First half of 2015. At least 6 emails and not counting phone calls, beginning Feb 12.
Aug 31, Saskatoon lawyer Samuel Edmondson filed a document with the Court in order to obtain the particulars.
The Requested Details were received September 8 from Ashu’s lawyer
We could file a Statement of Defence.
REPEATED REQUESTS
PLEASE SUPPLY THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT IS DEFAMATORY
2015
—– Original Message —–
From: “Daniel Reid”
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 3:29:10 PM
Subject: Solo v. Finley
February 12, 2015
VIA EMAIL
Good afternoon Sandra,
Earlier today I spoke with Tyler Dahl. He advised he was unaware of his client’s emails to me and communications to DomainPeople, and that he would tell his client to cut it out.
He will be sending me a list of the specific posts Mr. Solo has issues with later this week or early next week. He was very frank in stating that his client’s instructions were to send the list but that he recognized many of the things on the list likely were not actionable (i.e. you are permitted to post), and not to interpret the list as being his position with respect to the law.
Once I receive the letter from Mr. Dahl we should set up a time to discuss an appropriate response.
Kind Regards,
Daniel J. Reid
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
—–Original Message—–
From: SANDRA FINLEY
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 4:19 PM
To: Daniel Reid
Subject: Re: Solo v. Finley (INSERT: I was able to read before Daniel.)
If I was a lawyer communicating with another lawyer on behalf of my client, I would be embarassed to be sending a document that does not even attempt to define the legal issue(s).
Out of self-respect, I would not expect the other lawyer to be doing my work for me.
Daniel – – I will not be paying for you to do the work that Ashu’s lawyer should be doing. And I will not be wasting my time reading through the tripe submitted by Tyler. He is responsible for what he sent to you.
/Sandra
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
—–Original Message—– From: Daniel Reid Sent: February 16, 2015 11:27 AM To: ‘SANDRA FINLEY’ Subject: RE: Solo v. Finley
February 16, 2015
VIA EMAIL
Good morning Sandra,
I have not read the attachment, as on first glance it does not properly set out the legal objections to the various posts you have authored. Are you free to discuss at 3pm today?
Regards,
Daniel J. Reid
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
From: Daniel Reid Sent: May 4, 2015 11:07 AM To: ‘Sandra Finley’ Subject: RE: Billing, Solo v Finley
May 4, 2015
VIA EMAIL
Good morning Sandra,
My apologies, I had this in my “to respond” pile and overlooked getting back to you. . . .
since you wrote to me there has been a troubling development. On Friday afternoon I received the attached fax, which purports to be a statement of claim filed in Saskatchewan naming you as a defendant in a defamation action.
The attached claim suffers from the same defect I repeatedly advised Mr. Dahl of – it does not set out, with any of the required details, the specific statements that Mr. Solo is alleging are defamatory.
I am quite puzzled by this – I repeatedly made it clear to Mr. Dahl that you could not properly respond to demands that did not contain the statements that are at issue and why they are actionable.
Please let me know if you are free to discuss this matter tomorrow or Wednesday.
Kind Regards,
Daniel J. Reid
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
- May 1 Statement of Claim received by my lawyer. This first Claim (date filed with Court, 2015-04-17, I think is irrelevant given the Amended Claim.) (Note to self: it’s in May 4 email from Lawyer to me.)
- 2015-05-16 My lawyer sets out, in detail for the Plaintiff’s lawyer, what the legal requirements are. to_tyler_dahl-may16-detailed-failure-to-meet-legal-criteria.
As we have discussed, it is my position that a proper claim in defamation or for a breach of privacy must include the allegedly defamatory words. The importance of pleadings in actions for defamation is well known. . . . (followed by the comprehensive documentation)
(In my view, the First Claim should be viewed in the context of everything that has happened and not in isolation.)
—–Original Message—– From: Sandra Finley
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 12:16 AM To: Daniel Reid Subject: Ashu Solo, letter to Tyler re missed deadline
Is it possible to get a short letter to Tyler? . . .
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
From: Daniel Reid
Sent: June 18, 2015 10:08 AM To: ‘Sandra Finley’ Subject: RE: Ashu Solo, letter to Tyler re missed deadline
June 18, 2015
VIA EMAIL
Thank you – I confirm I have heard nothing further from Mr. Dahl.
I will provide you with a draft letter later today – . . . .
Daniel J. Reid
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
File Number: 132048
June 18, 2015
Cuelenaere, Kendall, Katzman & Watson Barristers, Solicitors and Mediators 500, 128 – 4th Ave South Saskatoon, SK S7K1M8
Attention: Tyler M. Dahl
Dear Sirs/Mesdames:
Re: Solo v. Finley et al
I write further to my letter of May 7, 2015, in which I set out my position that the notice of civil claim provided to my office failed to particularize the statements your client alleges are defamatory or are in breach of his privacy, and was therefore deficient.
As stated in my earlier letter, Ms. Finley was willing to make her blog password protected, in order to permit you time to prepare an amended notice of civil claim that properly sets out the statements that are allegedly defamatory or comprise a violation of your client’s privacy.
As you may be aware, following my letter, the entire blog was made password protected and no longer generally available. Ms. Finley has been very reasonable in attempting to resolve this matter quickly, efficiently, and without needless litigation.
Despite the additional time, the deadline of June 15, 2015 has passed. I remain at a loss as to what specific passages of the blog Mr. Solo alleges are defamatory or in breach of his privacy.
As Ms. Finley has instructed me to advise, if an amended notice of civil claim is not received on or before Wednesday, June 24, 2015, she may remove the password protection from her blog.
Page 2
132048/2919157.1
I look forward to hearing from you on or before June 24, 2015.
Yours truly,
HARPER GREY LLP
Per: Daniel J. Reid
DJR
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
—–Original Message—– From: Daniel Reid [mailto:dreid@harpergrey.com]
Sent: June 23, 2015 5:54 PM
To: ‘Sandra Finley’ Subject: RE: Today’s missive from Ashu SOlo, (June 23) Ashu Solo,
Thanks. I have heard nothing from Solo’s lawyer – I will try calling tomorrow, as I find the failure to respond to my letter quite unusual.
Regards,
Daniel J. Reid
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
2015-06-24 Amended Claim received. Posting includes my reaction, sent to my lawyer, Daniel.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
From: Sandra Finley [mailto:sabest1@sasktel.net] Sent: June 24, 2015 5:24 PM
To: ‘Daniel Reid’
Cc: Andrew G. MacCorquodale
Subject: RE: Solo v. Finley
CC: LFC Web Hosting (Jeff and Andrew), LFC named as co-defendant in the Statement of Claim
(Jeff & Andrew: do you have contact info for Fishnet? I would like to let them know that the situation is under control and regret that Ashu Solo is attempting to draw them into this. /S)
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
Thank-you Daniel (my lawyer),
Re inclusion of web hosting services (LFC and Fishnet) in the Statement of Claim, . . . And Fishnet is in Russia – – Ashu’s lawyer (Tyler) would know that the Court has no jurisdiction there?
Re the claim itself: I read the first part and stopped. It is, as are earlier communications, a twisted version of information.
Furthermore and as before, it is full of examples that do not meet the legal criteria for defamation; you can tell just by the wording. Really, it is a continuation of what has been received to date. We repeatedly requested that they provide claims that meet criteria.
It has the appearance of being a document prepared by Ashu and given to the lawyer, Tyler, to submit.
I am thinking there are two options:
- A counter-claim, as we discussed earlier. . . .
- I can go item-by-item and refute these claims (an odious waste of my time). Unless a counter-claim were to shut him down.
I will leave password protection in place for the time being.
/Sandra
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
While I think you have a counterclaim for defamation and potentially for intentional interference with economic relations
Accordingly, if at all possible I would strongly recommend Saskatchewan counsel drafting a response and counterclaim, even if the response is not provided to Mr. Dahl until August. (INSERT: holiday time) Defamation is an area of the law that can be very technical. It would be most unfortunate if Ashu was able to use the technical rules governing pleadings to obtain an advantage.
Kind Regards,
Daniel J. Reid Associate| Harper Grey LLP
– – – – – – – – –
Jul 6 Sandra to Daniel. re the work on transferring the file to a lawyer in Saskatoon. (Daniel would have to take out a Sask license plus I’d have more travel expenses to cover.)
– – – – – – – – –
- 2015-08-31 My lawyer (now Saskatoon lawyer Samuel Edmondson) files with Court:
Request-for-particulars filed with Court
- 2015-09-08 Finally receive from Plaintiff’s lawyer, details regarding the allegedly defamatory statements. Ashu’s lawyer’s Reply to Request for details, and my input to my lawyer.
- Oct 26, 2015 Statement of Defence filed.