‘ I would say I feel vindicated’
“There are many places in the world where I might expect such a thing to happen, but not in our beloved Dominion.”
Smith, who lives in St. Catharines, said the dismissal of the lawsuits “is a victory for every citizen in Niagara.”
“I would say that I feel vindicated, but that is not the right word for it,” Smith said. “This is a very important decision. I have said all along this is about the right of everyone to be able to criticize their government. I think there are politicians who need to be held to account for their actions.”
In a statement released Thursday night, NPCA said it was disappointed in some aspects of Ramsay’s decision, but it nonetheless appreciated he recognized there were inaccuracies in Smith’s report.
“The NPCA initiated these proceedings to preserve its reputation, and the reputation of its staff and board members; as well as to correct the misinformation and misstatements that had been advanced,” the NPCA statement said.
“Everyone has the right to an opinion, but the NPCA similarly has an obligation and duty to protect its reputation, and that of its employees and board members. The work that the NPCA undertakes on behalf of this community is important work. While we can be open to criticism and accept that not everyone will be happy with the decisions that we make, it is important from our perspective to ensure that what people are saying is always based on facts and supported by the truth.”
Ramsay’s decision said that Smith’s report — titled A Call for Accountability at the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority — wrongly said that D’Angelo’s consulting firm is based overseas — an error Ramsay said is the result of incorrect information posted on an online business directory.
“There was no malice or recklessness with the truth,” Ramsay wrote. “These questions arose out of a mistake by an unknown person who uploaded false information to the internet.”
The decision also says that Smith’s report raised questions about a fundraising contract awarded to Montgomery’s company by the NPCA foundation, and his business relationship with St. Catharines’ regional councillor Andy Petrowski. Ramsay found that while there was a link between Montgomery and Petrowski - the councillor presented himself as closely linked to Montgomery’s firm in 2013 at Wainfleet town council - there is not enough evidence of “a continuing connection” between the two to suggest a conflict of interest with the foundation contract.
“But that is in hindsight,” Ramsay wrote.
Smith’s report also questioned an untendered $ 41,000 contract awarded to D’Angelo’s company to do an NPCA restructuring project in 2013. D’Angelo was an NPCA board member at the time, and took a leave of absence to work as a private consultant for the board. He was later hired as the NPCA’s CAO and is currently the CAO of Niagara Region.
In Oct. 2016 when regional chair Alan Caslin called a special meeting to hire D’Angelo as CAO, Smith sent his report to Heit.
The next month, the NPCA sent Smith a letter demanding he “deliver a full and unqualified apology and retraction in a form approved by the board,” promise never to publish his report again or “make similar defamatory statements about the NPCA in the future,” and identify his sources.
Shortly after, NPCA board member and St. Catharines’ regional councillor Bruce Timms published a “special statement” saying that Smith’s report contained fabricated information to support false accusations against the NPCA.
Smith held a press conference in response to say he stood by his research.
The NPCA said in its Thursday statement that if Smith had corrected errors in his report “as initially requested, it would not have been necessary for the NPCA to proceed with this matter.”
However, Ramsay found that NPCA’s November 2016 letter responding to Smith’s allegations “did not explain anything. It simply contradicted his information … and threatened to sue him if he did not come to heel as demanded.”
“I think a reasonable person in Major Smith’s position would not have been inclined seriously to reconsider the accuracy of his information based on this letter.
“It looked more like the opening salvo in a war. In view of the ‘ special statement’, I infer that it was in fact just that.”
Ramsay dismissed the NPCA suit on two grounds. He said the authority had failed to show its case had merit and that a government entity cannot sue a citizen.
The NPCA argued it is not a government entity, but Ramsay said the argument was not tenable.
The judge wrote at length about the importance of free speech, quoting a judge from a 2006 defamation case.
“In a free and democratic system, every citizen must be guaranteed the right to freedom of expression about issues relating to government as an absolute privilege, without threat of a civil action for defamation being initiated against them by that government,” reads Ramsay’s decision. “It is the very essence of a democracy to engage many voices in the process, not just those who are positive and supportive.”
In his decision, Ramsay said the plaintiffs and the defendant could make written submissions regarding who should pay legal costs.
Smith had previously filed a countersuit against NPCA for $ 60,000. He said Thursday that given the complexities of the lawsuits, his countersuit had been put on hold. Smith said he has yet to decide if he will proceed with the countersuit.