Judge dismisses B.C. filmmaker’s lawsuit for sasquatch recognition
A Golden man who sued the B.C. government for failure to acknowledge the existence of the sasquatch has had his case thrown out of court.
Todd Standing sought a court declaration that the sasquatch — which in North American folklore has been depicted as a hairy, upright-walking, apelike being — is a hominoid or primate type of species and is an indigenous mammal living in B.C.
He also asked the court to declare that the government had infringed his fundamental rights as it relates to his concerns about the sasquatch and that the government had committed a dereliction of duty in regards to recognizing and protecting the fabled primate.
But in a ruling posted online Tuesday, a B.C. Supreme Court judge agreed with a government lawyer that Standing’s case discloses no reasonable claim and should be dismissed.
The government argued that Standing ’s claim was based on assumptions and speculation, lacked an air of reality and was ultimately incapable of being proven.
Standing claimed that his charter rights, including his right to freedom of expression and his right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, were being violated by the government.
He asserted that he was unable to fully impart information and ideas as to specific locations where sasquatch sightings occur on the basis that there are no safeguards in place to protect the species from being killed.
In his ruling on the case, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Kenneth Ball said the government’s non-acknowledgment of the sasquatch did not in any way prohibit or restrict Standing ’s ability to express his thoughts, beliefs and opinions regarding the sasquatch.
“Not revealing specific locations where sasquatch sightings occur is the decision of the plaintiff, and in no way infringes upon his ability to espouse his beliefs regarding sasquatch existence,” said the judge.
“On the facts pleaded, there is no indicator of how the province’s action — or lack of action — restricts the plaintiff ’s freedom of expression.”
Regarding the issue of whether Standing was subjected to cruel treatment at the hands of the government, the judge said it was clear that he was not being treated badly.
“In the case at bar, there is no overt exercise of provincial control over the plaintiff; inaction — in the sense of the province not recognizing the existence of the sasquatch — is by no means an exertion of control over the plaintiff on the facts of this case,” said the judge.
“The plaintiff has not been prohibited by the province from sharing his beliefs regarding the existence of the sasquatch, or from any other action.”
Standing also claimed he’d been discriminated against on grounds analogous to those enumerated in the charter, namely political or other beliefs, but the judge rejected that argument as well.
Troy Hunter, a lawyer for Standing, said he was waiting for instructions from his client and found it hard to comment.
“I’m not happy with the ruling. I think there are good grounds to appeal it.”
A woman who identified herself as Standing’s wife said her husband, a documentary filmmaker who produced a film about the sasquatch entitled Discovering Bigfoot, had been out filming for several days and while he was aware of the ruling, he had not read it.