Ward 11 Coun. Bill Leduc is attempting to silence a critic by filing a “blatantly frivolous and vexatious” lawsuit.
This, according to resident Anastasia Rioux’s statement of defence in response to a $450,000 lawsuit Leduc filed against her and the City of Greater Sudbury.
The lawsuit alleges that Rioux defamed him and that the city’s Election Compliance Audit Committee was biased against him and “engaged in unlawful conduct.”
Last year, Rioux submitted a complaint to the committee alleging that Leduc had breached election campaign rules in 2022. The committee determined there were “reasonable grounds” to pursue an audit of his finances, and a third-party report by KPMG reaffirmed the committee’s findings of apparent campaign finance rule breaches.
Central to their case was that a 2022 Grandparents’ Day event served as a campaign event for Leduc and should have been accounted for in his campaign finances.
The city’s Election Compliance Audit Committee unanimously agreed to pursue the matter through the court system, the results of which have yet to be determined.
In addition to $450,000, Leduc’s lawsuit seeks to render the committee’s decision null and void.
Leduc’s lawsuit is nothing more than a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (best known by its acronym, SLAPP), according to Rioux’s statement of defence.
SLAPP lawsuits are “aimed at chilling public discourse generally by discouraging, intimidating, and silencing the Defendant and those like her, from exercising their legal right to free speech and lawful public participation on matters of public interest,” the statement of defence notes.
As such, Rioux’s lawyers wrote that Leduc’s lawsuit “contravenes the essential democratic values that encourage and protect the right to participate in public discourse and raise matters of public concern.”
Although Leduc’s statement of claim notes that his reputation has been damaged, Rioux’s statement of defence says any damages he has allegedly suffered “is the result of (his) conduct in his capacity as a city councillor and not a result of the statements made by (Rioux).”
Rioux only filed a complaint with the Election Compliance Audit Committee because there was reasonable grounds to believe he’d broken campaign finance rules, and the committee was determined to have been the proper avenue to investigate these concerns, according to her defence.
“As a constituent of Ward 11, (Rioux) has the right in a free and democratic society to express her opinion publicly on matters of public interest,” according to her defence, and she “had every right to comment publicly” on her perception of Leduc’s alleged wrongdoing.
The City of Greater Sudbury filed their statement of defence last week, and have similarly called for Leduc’s lawsuit to be thrown out, calling it “misconceived.” The quasi-judicial committee cannot be sued, according to the city, which notes that its decisions are always subject to judicial review.
Leduc is engaging in an “abuse of process” by seeking relief through both a judicial review and a lawsuit, according to the city’s lawyers.
“Any impact to Mr. Leduc’s political ambitions, if any has been suffered, are a result of his own failures to ensure compliance with the campaign finance rules,” according to the city’s legal team. In addition to having the lawsuit dismissed, the city has requested that Leduc cover all court costs.
-With files from Mark Gentili
Tyler Clarke covers city hall and political affairs for Sudbury.com.