Cal Wenzel suing Mayor Nenshi for $6M

[4X4]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm not trying to defend Wenzel. I'm saying that he didn't do anything illegal, or much different than what a lot of other people and interest groups do, every election, yet you're saying that he tried to buy city hall. That's an exaggeration, so I quoted your post to say so.

[SebC]

How can Cal Wenzel says he's not the Godfather, when he says things like this?

“Our family is more resolved than ever to go after him.” - Cal Wenzel

That's pretty much "la familia is more resolved than ever to go after him" .

====

Also... Resolute14 and me agree on something... woah.

[GGG]

I think the fact that their is evidence that a possible illegal donation took place essentially wins this case for Nenshi. All discussion after that including hyperbole around the godfater comment seems to be protected per he earlier links posted.

I think a sitting mayor or councillor should be covered by lawsuits resulting from political discourse even if the discourse occurs during a campaign. It is in the cities best interest not to become the target of frivolous lawsuits for itself or elected members. If someone sued Rob Ford for Slander the city should provide him with a defense.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think the fact that their is evidence that a possible illegal donation took place essentially wins this case for Nenshi. All discussion after that including hyperbole around the godfater comment seems to be protected per he earlier links posted.

I think a sitting mayor or councillor should be covered by lawsuits resulting from political discourse even if the discourse occurs during a campaign. It is in the cities best interest not to become the target of frivolous lawsuits for itself or elected members. If someone sued Rob Ford for Slander the city should provide him with a defense.

The city should cover sitting politicians in the xcourse of their job, but on defamation? That's another story. Why should taxpayers be on the hook? That's jot 'just another day at the office'?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I'm not trying to defend Wenzel. I'm saying that he didn't do anything illegal, or much different than what a lot of other people and interest groups do, every election, yet you're saying that he tried to buy city hall. That's an exaggeration, so I quoted your post to say so.

I am not arguing Wenzel did anything illegal - although Nenhi's camp is certainly making a case that he did potentially break election contribution laws. But I do think Wenzel's actions exceeded the norms for special interests in politics. And that is why that video is so damning. I don't think there is much exaggeration here at all. It very much does appear that Wenzel was attempting to orchestrate a scenario that effectively put him in control of city council.

The dumb thing is, if he had simply come out and said openly "I believe blah blah blah and I am supporting these candidates who share my views", it would have resulted in very little blow back. Instead, we had all of this cloak and dagger nonsense, people wondering which candidates were on the Manning Centre's payroll and questions over just how easily various councilmen/candidates can be bought.It looks bad, and that is what generated the negative opinion of Wenzel.

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by Slava

The city should cover sitting politicians in the xcourse of their job, but on defamation? That's another story. Why should taxpayers be on the hook? That's jot 'just another day at the office'?

It's alleged defamation, what if we let everyone who had their feelings hurt during an election campaign sue the mayor at the mayor's expense.

Also, if the City lawyers believed that the case held no water and went to court, wouldn't they be pretty confident that they could be awarded court fee's? Meaning that at the end of the day the City would have a say in how the case was defended.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

The city should cover sitting politicians in the xcourse of their job, but on defamation? That's another story. Why should taxpayers be on the hook? That's jot 'just another day at the office'?

Because the position invites frivolous lawsuits. We can't have a situation where a strategy to discredit an elevted official is to sue them personally and force them to settle because they can't afford to mount a vigorous defense. So rather then decide based on the merits of each case who the city should defend it should be a blanket policy of the city to defend its elected officials.

[Slava]

Yes, I suppose that's true and you guys are right. I guess in the event the mayor was found liable for defamation though, should the city pony up the $5 million? I would hope that the mayor would just apologize ahead of that, but what do you think in that event?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

Yes, I suppose that's true and you guys are right. I guess in the event the mayor was found liable for defamation though, should the city pony up the $5 million? I would hope that the mayor would just apologize ahead of that, but what do you think in that event?

If he was found liable and the comments were made outside of his function of being mayor then I would think the individual should pay out of pocket. If the comments were made while performing mayoral duties then I think it should be covered by the city. My rationale is that you fund the defense of the personal lawsuits because you want to avoid any frivolous law suits once the case has been found to have merit that arguement disppears therefore I would like the individual to be liable.

[Rathji]

Part of me thinks that it kind of follows that if the city is responsible for his defense, that they pay the penalty if he loses.

If they shouldn't be paying if he loses, then why are they defending him? Either they are responsible for his actions, or not.

Seems like a strange legal situation that would be created which is almost saying, "I am going to defend you, but I have no real incentive for you to win."

[Kybosh]

Cal, stop being a Nenshi Noun.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Smartcar

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.

would you be able to find the date of this, It might be here somewhere, but I don't have time to look.

However, if he did the interview during the campaign in the context of the election then no he wasn't acting as mayor.

If he did do it in the context of being mayor then Wenzel should be suing the city as well as Nenshi as the key representative.

As far as the BS statement of claim, that's up to the courts to decide. I would be very surprised if this got to the courts not because of the merits of lack of merits to the case, but because Nenshi would be foolish not to attempt tosettle because of the uncertainties of the courts in defamation cases.

And I don't know how good Nenshi would be on the stand, he tends to be his own worst enemy when he gets fired up.

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by Slava

Yes, I suppose that's true and you guys are right. I guess in the event the mayor was found liable for defamation though, should the city pony up the $5 million? I would hope that the mayor would just apologize ahead of that, but what do you think in that event?

I have no idea. I would hope the City lawyers would determine ahead that the case was not worth fighting and would advise the mayor to just apologize. But if he was liable I would think it would be on him and his campaign to cover the damages. I just don't know the legal system enough to know how that would look.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Part of me thinks that it kind of follows that if the city is responsible for his defense, that they pay the penalty if he loses.

If they shouldn't be paying if he loses, then why are they defending him? Either they are responsible for his actions, or not.

Seems like a strange legal situation that would be created which is almost saying, "I am going to defend you, but I have no real incentive for you to win."

Oh I agree, but that's what makes this such a confusing situation. I mean its debatable as to whether the comments here are made as mayor (I mean he was technically the mayor at the time), and in the normal course of his job, or whether they were made as a candidate? Clearly the comments and questions that Nenshi brought forward were as a candidate for re-election, and the video was really about the upcoming election. Does the city have to defend every potential candidate for election? (At that point no papers are filed, so technically there are no candidates until nomination day....just to muddy the waters further!). Its a complete mess in terms of the semantics.

As I mentioned earlier though, both Andre Chabot and Chris Harper said that the city would not be on the hook for legal costs due to defamation. Chabot made it clear that they were all told that this was the case during an orientation when they were first elected. I have no idea about whether that is the case, but it makes some sense.

[puckluck2]

Why would Cal want an apology when he knows Nenshi won't mean it? What a d-bag.

There is no way Nenshi should apologize and he has never been a guy who did something he doesn't feel is right. He'd rather go bankrupt then to apologize to scumbag supreme.

[undercoverbrother]

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.

That was my question......

[DFO]

If this goes to trial and Nenshi is denied $ from the city I suspect we'll see a kickstarter campaign (or something like that) raise the required cash for his defence.

[Stay Golden]

Originally Posted by DFO

If this goes to trial and Nenshi is denied $ from the city I suspect we'll see a kickstarter campaign (or something like that) raise the required cash for his defence.

putrid

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by DFO

If this goes to trial and Nenshi is denied $ from the city I suspect we'll see a kickstarter campaign (or something like that) raise the required cash for his defence.

Ugh a fool and his money. . .

Save your money for a truly worthy cause.

This is a local pissing match between two guys with out of control egos.

There are charities that could use 5 or 6 million bucks.

[Stay Golden]

Originally Posted by DFO

If this goes to trial and Nenshi is denied $ from the city I suspect we'll see a kickstarter campaign (or something like that) raise the required cash for his defence.

putrid i would sooner raise money for several charity's over raising money for any politician that over stepped their boundaries.
I remember it like yesterday Nenshi making comments, "shadowy dark meeting", words like "secretive and clandestine", "my office has obtained footage of this meeting".
Really it just showed up one sunny day with a neat little bow on it, is that what Nenshi is saying, intelligent people are suppose to buy that story.