Cal Wenzel suing Mayor Nenshi for $6M

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

"Concerned businessman contributing to a campaign" and "special interest trying to buy government for personal gain" aren't the same thing. The leaked tape makes Wenzel appear to be the latter, not the former. Particularly given, as SebC notes, Wenzel, his cohorts and their supported candidates were not willing to be up front about their intentions. It was all done behind what they thought were closed doors. That is why the video was so damaging to Wenzel's reputation.

I see the nefarious angle. How is that different from Nenshis fundraiser where no one could get in other than paid attendees (even media?). We're not talking about some circumvention of the electoral process here either. They were talking about getting councillors elected who agree with them and would vote in favour of what they wanted. That's really just bare bones politics.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

If he is acting within his capacity as mayor, shoudn't the city of calgary law department defend him at no cost to Nenshi? I have not read the pleadings so can't say if they are all "within the course/description of hois employment".

But was he acting within his capacity as mayor or was he acting as a means of furthering his re-election campaign?

Since it was part of his campaign I'd say he wasn't acting as mayor, that's not from the sounds of it what Wenzel is suing over.

And if that's the case then Nenshi should be on the hook for his own lawyer and not a city lawyer at the cost to the taxpayer.

If it was something that Nenshi said in chamber or in an official capacity then you could argue that the city is liable and Wenzel would have sued the city.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

I see the nefarious angle. How is that different from Nenshis fundraiser where no one could get in other than paid attendees (even media?). We're not talking about some circumvention of the electoral process here either. They were talking about getting councillors elected who agree with them and would vote in favour of what they wanted. That's really just bare bones politics.

How is it different? Probably because - unless you have a sekrit tape of Nenshi's fundraiser showing otherwise- he didn't hold the event in secret, nor did he use it to discuss how to buy control of city council for his personal gain.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But was he acting within his capacity as mayor or was he acting as a means of furthering his re-election campaign?

Since it was part of his campaign I'd say he wasn't acting as mayor, that's not from the sounds of it what Wenzel is suing over.

And if that's the case then Nenshi should be on the hook for his own lawyer and not a city lawyer at the cost to the taxpayer.

If it was something that Nenshi said in chamber or in an official capacity then you could argue that the city is liable and Wenzel would have sued the city.

The city is caught in a no-win scenario here. On the one hand, I tend to support your opinion. On the other hand, an election is city business, and lawsuits against elected officials have the very real possibility of chilling all political discourse if not vigourously fought. Especially if the city's lawyers are of the opinion that Nenshi will win.

[Ozy_Flame]

Wenzel is probably only suing Nenshi because he can't find the person who recorded the video, try as he did. He wants to play tag and Nenshi happens to be the closest and most visible person.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The city is caught in a no-win scenario here. On the one hand, I tend to support your opinion. On the other hand, an election is city business, and lawsuits against elected officials have the very real possibility of chilling all political discourse if not vigourously fought. Especially if the city's lawyers are of the opinion that Nenshi will win.

And I would argue that when an election is happening and what you say during an election is not city business, your talking points are on a individual level in the hopes of being chosen to do city business.

You are acting as an individual and not Calgary incorporated.

Its not that I dislike Nenshi, I'm not a fan of his and that's pretty obvious. But if what Wenzel is suing him for came during his election campaign then no city resources or money should be used to fight the lawsuit.

If it was something said that was a in camera statement in council or in response to a official city policy debate then you could argue that the city is equally on the hook to provide a defense.

I am more following this story because it could create a really interesting legal situation in election law where a private citizen can actively sue a candidate over something said in the campaign, which means that it wouldn't be a big stretch for a losing candidate to sue a winning candidate over a perceived slight in a heated debate.

[Resolute 14]

I would say your latter comment is a very good argument of why the city probably should help fund Nenshi's defence, CC. Not for the sake of Nenshi, but for the sake of democracy.

[CaptainCrunch]

Its not up to the city to set a legal battle in that way. I get what you're saying, but during an election, I don't believe that Nenshi is really even mayor when he's campaigning he's certainly the incumbent, but from the time the election starts til the last vote is counted he is a candidate representing his own views, not the city.

I guess and this might be silly, but if Nenshi committed election fraud during his election should the city be on the hook for his legal defense?

One of the quotes that I heard once is its not up to the city to defend democracy, its up to the city to practice democracy.

[Bunk]

Obviously, I'm not going to engage in any debate on the matter, but for your interest, I'll leave this here - it includes the Mayor's statement and letter in response to the statement of claim.

http://blog.calgarymayor.ca/2013/11/...regarding.html

[Minnie]

I don't even live in Calgary - but I'd throw $ in the pot for Nenshi, for a defense fund, if needed.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I would say your latter comment is a very good argument of why the city probably should help fund Nenshi's defence, CC. Not for the sake of Nenshi, but for the sake of democracy.

Geez where does that line end? Should the government defend any crackpot comment from any candidate said to try and win an election? Only the incumbents? Only candidates we like? Only comments we like?

I have a feeling if someone were suing DCU not a soul would be arguing the city ought to pay.

[Ozy_Flame]

If Cal wins, does he personally get $5 million in damages? Just from feeling insulted?

Holy balls, this sounds like south of the border and the "sue everyone" culture down there.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

I have a feeling if someone were suing DCU not a soul would be arguing the city ought to pay.

Perhaps not, but odds are that city policy might well mean it would anyway.

Edit: Nenshi's statement also says the city is looking into whether its insurance coverage would pay for a legal defence. A couple thoughts there: 1. Anything that costs an insurer money is fine by me. 2. The statement itself implies that the city may well be obligated, even if we feel it should not. That further implies that a law (or by-law) may require changing.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Obviously, I'm not going to engage in any debate on the matter, but for your interest, I'll leave this here - it includes the Mayor's statement and letter in response to the statement of claim.

http://blog.calgarymayor.ca/2013/11/...regarding.html

The attached response from Nenshi's legal support to Wenzel's is the more valuable document. We've now drawn up our battle lines:

On campaign contributions: Wenzel claims that his company donated $5,000, the allowed max, but the dispute is whether allowing his staff to use Shane Homes' vehicles in support of a candidate's efforts constitutes a "campaign contribution". Nenshi says yes, Wenzel says no. I have no idea on which side is right there, but I have used company vehicles in the past, and our policy was pretty damn simple: "When you are using our vehicles, you are acting as our agent, whether you are on the clock or not." Particularly given Wenzel's own statement in the video re: fighting against Druh Farrell last election. Wenzel pretty much admitted those vehicles were being used at his direction. My layperson's view is that Nenshi's argument is stronger.

I don't know much about protected privilege, so can't comment on the applicability or strength of that. Troutman, Valo?

I also agree completely with the rebuttal re: the Godfather reference. Not only was it obvious hyperbole/opinion, but the lawyer did a pretty good job of putting Wenzel's own comments into the same context. This, IMO, was a huge mistake on Wenzel's part. Already, the news stories have focused on the easy carrot of the pop culture reference, and that only makes Wenzel look like a fool. His lawyers should have deterred him from making this part of the claim. It never had any hope of helping his case.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

How is it different? Probably because - unless you have a sekrit tape of Nenshi's fundraiser showing otherwise- he didn't hold the event in secret, nor did he use it to discuss how to buy control of city council for his personal gain.

Well the meeting was to run for mayor, so it basically was to take control of the city

Thing is I voted for Nenshi and happily so. I wouldn't have voted for whoever Wenzel and his cronies came up with, so its somewhat irrelevant. But I also see the other side here...its not illegal to have a meeting and say "let's get people elected who agree with us and will vote the way we want". That's what politics is actually. There's nothing terrible in that thought.

I still laugh at the "secret" meeting. What was secret? That only some people were invited? Oh, the horror. I guess I've sat in on some similar "secret" meetings and they're not that exciting.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

How is it different? Probably because - unless you have a sekrit tape of Nenshi's fundraiser showing otherwise- he didn't hold the event in secret, nor did he use it to discuss how to buy control of city council for his personal gain.

I think you're really stretching it here. There is nothing wrong with holding a meeting with like minded people (business colleagues and even competition) to discuss what's in their common best interest. And if they do hold said meeting, are they supposed to do a press release to let everyone know? Not saying anything does not make it secret. And requesting that it be private, and not recorded does not make it nefarious.

I fully understand why people are seriously rubbed the wrong way by that meeting, and what was discussed, but it's no different than the meetings that unions hold, and oil companies hold.

I guess what I'm saying is that if it really bugs you, so be it. Go ahead and hate builders because it's the cool thing to do these days, especially here on CP, but holding a meeting to discuss which candidates to support is nothing new, it's not illegal, and it happens every election with all kinds of groups.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by fotze

I for one am quite surprised by the sides both Slava and resolute are taking on this.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, given we pretty much agree on nothing as a matter of routine. Or if you are being serious given I am defending the liberal, and Slava the conservative!

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, given we pretty much agree on nothing as a matter of routine. Or if you are being serious given I am defending the liberal, and Slava the conservative!

I would've thought that we would agree here actually! To me its not a political issue though. I just can't understand what Wenzel did wrong? I can separate that thought from whether or not I agree with him and the councillors he supports (I don't). To me those are two separate questions though.

It basically comes down to the old adage where I agree with his right to say it, but don't agree with what he says. (Which is obviously #######ized)

[Resolute 14]

4x4 - I'm not hating on the building industry as a whole here, but Wenzel individually. Do his actions bug me? Yes. Is there anything that can be done about it? Not really, no. But the fact that special interests working in their own interest is a standard part of politics does not constitute a defence in the court of public opinion. And that court found Wenzel's actions wanting. The consequences of those actions would have been pretty much zero in the long run if he just let it lie. Instead, he chose to make a bigger issue out of it. On top of looking foolish, we're now going to get to see whether he actually did break election laws.

[Smartcar]

Originally Posted by Slava

I just can't understand what Wenzel did wrong?

He filed a bull$hit statement of claim for defamation, for what most people would consider fair comment in the context of an election campaign.

Wenzel can say whatever he wants privately to like minded people. Obviously when his private statements become public, people who don't agree can say so. That's life when you're in the public eye.

As far as paying for Nenshi's defense, he was interviewed by CBC as mayor. If he were a challenger would he have been interviewed? Maybe, but I can guarantee Wenzel would not have filed for defamation against an unsuccessful candidate for saying he was "maybe" like the Godfather. So Nenshi was sued because he's the mayor and said what he did. I don't think he shouldn't have to pay for the defense personally.