Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Brian Burke Sues for Defamation - Again


Wetcoaster

Recommended Posts

So do we file this under the heading of:

"Thin-skinned Burkie can dish it out but he cannot take it"??

Several years back Brian Burke sued the New York Post and Larry Brooks for defamation in BC for an article Brooks wrote and which was published on the NYP website and in print. If Burke had brought action in New York he would almost assuredly have lost. But under BC law Burke has an arguable case. The Defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the BC courts and lost.

Here was the decision of the BC Supreme Court where it was ruled that Burkie could file suit in BC.

http://www.courts.go...005bcsc1287.htm

That case involved Brooks raising the issue of Burke being in a conspiracy to injure Steve Moore during the Bertuzzi brouhaha and it would form part of Moore's initial claim that was filed in Colorado but ironically was tossed because the court ruled it did not have sufficient jurisidiction

Persona attacks were regularly trotted out by Burke when he was on his weekly radio gig and applied to media and player agents. Back in the day when I was a player agent I was recipient of such a comment from Burke as was Mike Beamish and he regularly impugned the professional standing of player agents.

Vancouver Sun hockey writer Mike Beamish recall being branded thus by Burke:

The one journalist who was prepared to talk about Burke for the record was Mike Beamish. He was on the Canucks beat from 1984 to 1994 for The Vancouver Sun before becoming a sports columnist. He was still willing to comment the day Burke was introduced to the Toronto media.

"Burkie fights his own battles, but he creates his own battles," said Beamish from his Vancouver home. He recalled his first dealings with Burke in the late 1980s and how their relationship began on a civil and professional level. But he says as he started writing more critical stories on the team, Burke's attitude changed.

"He's a bully…" said Beamish. "Brian thinks that all reporters are basically lazy and none of them work as hard he does." But Beamish also offered praise. "I do believe Brian is a really good hockey guy. He knows talent but it's as if he's always trying to prove himself."

Burke was a regular on a popular talk show in Vancouver and Beamish says many reporters would listen to hear if Burke trashed them.
"One night," he remembers, "Burke referred to me as 'that guy who writes from a drug-induced fantasy.'"

http://www.cbc.ca/sp...l#ixzz0pS1opkm1

But when Brooks did something similar Burkie cried foul and filed suit. The matter never made it to trial as it was settled out of court IIRC.

In this case Burkie is filing suit against 18 anonymous commenters. The usernames listed in the claim are styled as:

JOHN DOES #1 TO #18, a.k.a. “NOFIXEDADDRESS”, “CAMBARKERFAN”, “LAVY16”, “MBSKIDMORE”, “TULOWD”, “LOOB”, “NAGGAH”, “MOWERMAN”, “AARONP18”, “STEVE”, “KABOOMIN8”,“THEZBRAD”, “SLOBBERFACE”, “POONERMAN”, “ISOLATEDCIRCUIT”, “KANADA KEV”, “NCOGNITO” AND “SIR PSYCHO SEXY”.

This is set out in the Notice of Claim filed in BC Supreme Court - for the full document see:

http://nbcprohockeyt...-2013-04-26.pdf

As reported by Metronews:

In a statement released on Friday, Burke’s lawyer Peter Gall said the comments, allegedly made under pseudonyms such as “Slobberface” and “Mowerman,” are false and defamatory, and that they have hurt both Burke’s and Mae’s families.

“Brian has decided that it is time to stop people who post comments on the Internet from thinking they can fabricate wild stories with impunity,” Gall said. “Brian is determined to find the authors of the lie about him and those who have circulated the lie.”

The court documents say Burke is suing for losses and damages to his reputation. His lawyer is also seeking to have each of the 18 defendants restrained from publishing the statements on the Internet.

None of the claims have been proven in court, and a statement of defence has not been filed.

http://metronews.ca/...efamation-suit/

These John Does claimed that Burke was actually fired from his position as Maple Leafs GM because he had an affair with a Sportsnet reporter and fathered her child. Burke denies this. As set out in his Notice of Civil Claim in part:

Defamation

13. On or about the dates and times set out in Schedule “A”, the Defendants, individually or jointly, wrote and published, or caused to be published the following defamatory statements about and concerning the Plaintiff (the “Defamatory Statements”):

Contrary to popular belief, the reason for Burke's firing was not his willingness to pull off the Roberto Luongo trade….

Well it didn't take long for Brain Burke and Hazel Mae to hook up. In the summer of 2012, Sportsnet removed her from the glass desk because she wouldn't fit, insisting that she stand while on air. The reason she wouldn't fit is that she was pregnant. She became so dishevelled looking as the summer wore on that Sportsnet sent her home while they decided how to handle the impending scandal.

Scandal, you say? Well yessirr......The father could have been any number of worthy candidates, but the lucky dad is, in fact, our very own Brian Burke.

So splashdown was back in December. Hazel and Burkie have been at odds as to if, how and when to release the news. Sportsnet still doesn't know what to do with her. On the other hand, new owners of the Toronto Maple Leafs in Bell Canada have little, if any, tolerance for egotistical.belligerent, sex-addicted senior executives and decided to eliminate the problem by gassing Burke.”

14. The words set out in the paragraph above referred to, or were understood to refer to the Plaintiff, as they referenced the Plaintiff by name, and in their natural and ordinary meaning meant and were understood to mean that:

(a) The Plaintiff had a sexual relationship with the Rogers Sportsnet reporter Hazel

Mae; and

(
B)
The Plaintiff is the father of Hazel Mae’s child.

15. Both of these meanings are false and defamatory.

16. The Defamatory Statements have been published, republished, downloaded, viewed and commented on by persons in British Columbia and Ontario and throughout Canada and the United States by various means, including through email, internet bulletin board postings, Facebook pages and Twitter messages, and have harmed the Plaintiff’s reputation in, amongst other jurisdictions, British Columbia, Ontario, and other parts of Canada and the United States

17. The Defamatory Statements were made with the knowledge that they were false or with a reckless disregard for their truth.

Apparently Burle also instructed his legal counsel to send out cease and desist (aka "libel chill") letters to board operators as well as hockey blogger Toronto Mike discovered back in January of 2013:

header.gif

When Brian Burke Attacks: What Would You Do?

Published by Toronto Mike on January 23, 2013 @ 14:06 in Toronto Maple Leafs

Last Friday, I did what I've done every Friday for quite some time. I hosted an Open Mike entry where folks can comment about whatever's on their mind.

I've maintained this blog for over ten years, and in that time I've received 47348 comments on 11744 entries. 69 of those comments were on this particular Open Mike entry, and one has resulted in a rather threatening cease and desist letter from a lawyer representing Brian Burke.

The anonymous comment reiterated a rumour that's been all over the place this past month. I myself have heard this Brian Burke rumour from many different sources, but have never written about it here because I don't believe it to be true. In fact, I wrote this comment on January 18, 2013 at 18:14 in response:

The rumour about Burke is everywhere, but that doesn't make it true. It's not fair to Burke or Hazel Mae to treat such scandalous speculation as fact.

I've already removed the offending comment. I'm simply not in the mood to be bullied by lawyers over an anonymous comment on my blog. The cease and desist letter, however, didn't just ask me to remove the comment, it wanted me to pass on all information I have "concerning the individual noted above who published or republished this story, and of any other individual who has published or republished the whole of the “news story”" on TorontoMike.com. That's something I'm not willing to do.

I am many things, but I am not a lawyer. I'm going to reproduce the letter in its entirety below in the hopes you'll share with me your opinion and advice. Perhaps one of you is a lawyer or knows a lawyer? Here's the letter I received earlier today.

We are legal counsel for Mr. Brian Burke. Mr. Burke is extremely concerned about a defamatory “story” being posted about him in various places to the effect that he is the father of Hazel Mae’s child. The “story” also contains many other defamatory statements about Mr. Burke.

It has come to our attention that the “story” was posted in response to your “Mid-January Open Mike” blog on January 18, 2013 at 20:14 by “Anonymous”.

While you referred to the “story” as scandalous speculation, it remains posted on your web site. We trust you are aware of the legal consequences of the publication and re-publication of the postings. Please immediately remove this posting from your web site, and any similar postings on your web site which publish or republish the defamatory statements noted above in whole, or in part, or in substance.

If you do not remove the posting we have identified and any other similar postings from your web site, we have instructions to commence legal proceedings to protect Mr. Burke’s reputation and interests.

Please also provide us with any and all information you have concerning the individual noted above who published or republished this story, and of any other individual who has published or republished the whole of the “news story” on your web site. Mr. Burke wishes to discover the author of the story. If you do not provide us with such information, we have instructions to commence legal proceedings in order to obtain a court order that you provide that information to us and pay Mr. Burke’s costs of having to obtain the court’s assistance.

We look forward to hearing from you immediately.

H. David Edinger

Heenan Blaikie LLP

Lawyers

2200 – 1055 West Hastings Street

Vancouver, BC, V6E 2E9

I've yet to reply back...

I would love to have Burke under oath on an examination for discovery. It would be a lot of fun.

"Mr. Burke have you ever had sexual relations with a woman who is not your wife during the currency of a marriage ?"

Burke's counsel: "Relevance?"

"Well it goes to the quantum of damages, If Mr, Burke had an extra-marital affair then any damages to his reputation would be significantly lessened."

"Oh yes, and Mr. Burke have you ever fathered a child out of wedlock?"

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...