Original title before update: Breaking: Dr. Tim Ball wins @MichaelEMann lawsuit – Mann has to pay
See the update below.
Readers surely recall that the easily offended Dr. Michael Mann launched a court case for defamation against climate skeptic Dr. Tim Ball of Canada.
In Feburary 2018 there was a complete dismissal in the lawsuit brought against Dr. Ball by Andrew Weaver of Canada, also for “defamation”.
The Weaver defamation case involved an article Ball wrote saying that the IPCC had diverted almost all climate research funding and scientific investigation to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). This meant that there was virtually no advance in the wider understanding of climate and climate change. Ball referenced an interview with Weaver and attempts by a student to arrange a debate. Ball made some comments that were not fully substantiated, so they became the base of the defamation lawsuit.
That case was completely dismissed, you can read more here.
Now in the Mann case, which goes back to 2011, there’s also a complete dismissal. Ball wrote to me less than an hour ago, asking me to announce it here.
He writes:
Hi Anthony
Michael Mann’s case against me was dismissed this morning by the BC Supreme Court and they awarded me [court] costs.
Tim Ball
This is a developing story, I’ll add more as we know more.
UPDATE:
Dr. Mann Has Posted On Twitter In Reply To This Article
Mann’s statement is here: https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1164910044414189568
For those who are blocked by Dr. Mann: (including me)
And if you’re blocked on Facebook by Dr. Mann, here is that statement:
John O’Sullivan of PSI wrote to one of our moderators with this intro and statement given by Dr. Ball that I was not aware of. Mann of course does not tell his readers this other very important fact, sort of like what he did in “hide the decline” by not reporting negative results that compromised his argument. Mann was doing most of the foot dragging that caused such long delays as the case has been active since 2011.
As Mark Steyn once pointed out; “the process is the punishment “.
O’Sullivan writes:
In short, Mann’s responsive statement is:
- Stark admission he lost fair and square
- A disingenuous argument that the Dismissal was granted merely on the basis of Mann’s “delay” in not submitting his R2 numbers in a timely fashion.
The case has gone on an entire nine years.
On that point, this is where readers may wish to refer to the article ‘Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann‘ (July 4, 2017). In it they offered analysis as to Mann’s fatal legal error. As Dr Ball explained at that time:
“Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.”
As I explained in the article, Mann (and his crooked lawyer) had shown bad faith, thereby rendering his case liable for dismissal. I urged Tim to pursue that winning tactic and thankfully he did.
Assisting Dr Ball has been a huge honor for me and probably one of the greatest achievements of my life. But Tim only won this famous courtroom battle thanks to massive worldwide grassroots support.
Anthony: So, as usual, in my opinion Dr. Mann’s ego interprets the facts only in ways that suit his viewpoint, which is the whole reason he got into trouble with the hockey-stick in the first place.
And it isn’t just me who thinks Mann’s arguments are merit-less, in the other defamation case he is pursuing, he has no friends:
Mann’s media buddies leave him high and dry – oppose his lawsuit
Twenty-four media organizations, including The Washington Post, NBC Universal, and Fox News, have sided with the conservative National Review and free market-leaning Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) over a defamation lawsuit brought by a leading climate scientist.
The organizations, which also included the Society of Professional Journalists and the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia, were signatories to a Feb. 13, letter filed with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in which both the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute requested a rehearing of their case before the full appeals court.
In December 2018, a three-judge panel amended a previous ruling against them. But according to the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, which represents the two-dozen media groups, a full rehearing of the case is now “warranted.”
“The panel’s decision on the merits of plaintiff’s defamation claim … may have unintended and undesirable consequences in future cases implicating the exercise of amici’s right to freedom of speech and of the press,” attorneys for the Reporters Committee stated.
Read it here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/22/manns-media-buddies-leave-him-high-and-dry-oppose-his-lawsuit/
These two quotes seem relevant to Dr. Mann’s travails, and I think the first one speaks loudly to his “save the planet from global warming” machinations:
When any man is more stupidly vain and outrageously egotistic than his fellows, he will hide his hideousness in humanitarianism. –George Moore
Egotism is the anesthetic which nature gives us to deaden the pain of being a fool. Dr. Herbert Shofield
UPDATE #2
Then there is this:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Now, Dr. Ball just needs to have the Canadian court’s ruling/order “domesticated” so that it can be enforced state side. Does Dr. Mann still live in Pennsylvania? Dr. Ball will need to engage an attorney that is licensed by the Penn. state bar to practice (or find a suitable representative) in the state and figure out what are the next steps.
Tank the mann POS into arbitration and have Dr. Ball do a conditional acceptance of the claims by Michael Mann upon proof of claim. Give Mann 10 days to answer all of the Proof of Claim that he has falsely made with the stipulation that each one of the un proven claims is a sum certain of 10 million dollars. any attempt to trespass upon the private arbitration process will be an automatic 100 million additional claim payable within 72 hours. All of this under 9 U.S. Code CHAPTER 1— GENERAL PROVISIONS of the Federal Arbitration Act. All parties that were involved get served a conditional acceptance upon verified proof of Claim. if they do not answer with 10 days, notice them with a Notice of Fault Opportunity to Cure with a SELF-EXECUTING IRREVOCABLE DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY COUPLED WITH INTEREST with which they have 3 days to respond. Mr. Mann and his phony coherts in fraud, deception and deceit will be calling Southwest Airlines to see if they have started service to Mars as of yet!!!LOL
I don’t think this is over yet. Michael Mann put this up on his facebook page…..
“There have been some wildly untruthful claims about the recent dismissal of libel litigation against Tim Ball circulating on social media. Here is our statement:
The defendant Ball did not “win” the case. The Court did not find that any of Ball’s defenses were valid. The Court did not find that any of my claims were *not* valid.
The dismissal involved the alleged exercise of a discretion on the Court to dismiss a lawsuit for delay. I have an absolute right of appeal. My lawyers will be reviewing the judgment and we will make a decision within 30 days.
The provision in the Court’s order relating to costs does NOT mean that I will pay Ball’s legal fees.
This ruling absolutely does not involve any finding that Ball’s allegations were correct in fact or amounted to legitimate comment. In making his application based on delay, Ball effectively told the world he did not want a verdict on the real issues in the lawsuit.”
Mann didn’t lose the case, you understand. He will just have to appeal the ruling if he wants to win it.
What a spin artist.
The guy’s a snake, alright. And totally without shame.
I won’t pretend to fully understand all this legal stuff, but what I gather is that Ball filed an application for dismissal from delay, which means Mann and his lawyers sat on the case for so long that something happened to infringe on Ball’s ability to see a fair trial. If that’s the case, the court takes these things extremely seriously so there must have been clear evidence of prejudice. Seeing that the Frontier Centre, which was the other defendant in the case, settled with Mann last month, it’s a solid bet that that’s what Ball’s legal team is arguing would prejudice the jury. Which is to say, given that half of the defendant’s in the case settled, it would be pretty much impossible for any jury to now be impartial.
Mann saw them as the weaker of the two camps of defendants and more vulnerable, the low-hanging fruit, and he managed to bluff them into dropping out and apologizing rather than face endless delays and perhaps bankruptcy from legal costs. It is too bad, but that is how winnable cases are sometimes abandoned when facing an adversary with bottomless pockets, even if those pockets belong to his backers, who have a lot to lose if he is shown to be a FRAUD.
Justice delayed is truly justice denied.
The fact that Mann delayed so badly suggests that he was not serious in winning the case in court. His intention was to harass, or perhaps to win by exhausting the money or patience of Ball. It seems to have backfired.
Mann says
Mann lives in complete denial of reality. Mann brought the case against Tim Ball and the case was dismissed. That, right there, is a win for Tim Ball with no other interpretation possible. Paying court costs vs paying legal fees is a measure of the pain Tim Ball has to endure.
Mann went on to say
The real issues in the lawsuit dont involve climate, they involve libel. Mann has no clue.
“Mann lives in complete denial of reality.”
In fact, Mr Mann lives with a very thorough and cynical comprehension of reality. He is well-funded and assured of favourable treatment in the MSM. He is supported by powerful interests. This loss will hardly faze him. He’ll bluff it out and the faithful will remain assured.
With all the power on his side, the only thing likely to topple him from his perch is a sudden, indisputable cooling of the planet. There are indications that this may even be beginning, but certainty is not yet close.
‘Mr Mann lives with a very thorough and cynical comprehension of reality.’
Agreed – as he’s selling fraud. Cynicism is the word alright.
Is this now legal to post again?
ENCORE!!…and recap.
Would you like to see the “Hide the Decline” videos again?
Hide the Decline…the popular ‘Hide the Decline’ spoof video poking fun at Dr. Michael Mann, a
prominentdisgraced scientist involved in the Climategate scandal.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc
Hide the Decline II: the Sequel
This is a sequel to the popular ‘Hide the Decline’ spoof video poking fun at Dr. Michael Mann, a
prominentdisgraced scientist involved in the Climategate scandal.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrd3HYU80Dk
And now Mann has actually admitted guilt per non disclosure of metadata in court.
Remember, what they say about a wise man:
Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
Another one bites the dust…uh huh…AGW bites the dust…oh, yeah…AGW bites, AGW bites, AGW bites the dust!!
[I believe I got the following from a John O’Sullivan article…sorry for not being able to cite it properly]
Climate Scientists Discussed Ways To Make The 1940’s Warmth Disappear
From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
The gatekeepers at “science” journals are absolutely real. We all remember Phil Jones words about stopping skeptics papers from being published: “.. “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
From: Phil Jones [Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia University of CLIMATEGATE fame].
To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
“I’ve just completed Mike’s [Dr. Michael Mann] Nature ‘trick‘ of adding in the ‘real‘ temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Michael Mann hid the post-1960 decline in the temperatures, as measured by Briffa in his paleoclimate studies using tree ring data. Mann claimed that the decline didn’t match the surface temperature record, and simply erased it.
Wait a minute. My understanding is that Mann sued Ball for saying ‘Mann belongs in the State Pen, not Penn State’, and Ball defended himself not by saying it was humor, but that it was the truth.
A dismissal would mean…
Your “reasoning” for “libel” would have been laughed out of court the minute the papers were filed.
Great victory!!!
Good point above concerning the emails that show evidence of what appears to me to be intent to deceive, to push an agenda by trying to make the medieval warming period go away.
This is an excellent summary of the key technical issues concerning the hockey stick issue.
It appears based on the evidence and analysis that Mann created the Hockey Stick graph that is displayed in IPCC AR3 report in the summary and four other promote location in the report) by cherry picked tree ring data (finding trees in a region where precipitation is reduced when the planet is warmer and increased when it is cooler, so tree rings width for the trees in that region is inversely proportional to temperature) and then used a analysis technique that enables cherry picked incorrect to make cyclic warming and cooling go away and create the desired hockey stick.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About?
… At the political level the emerging debate is about whether the enormous international trust that has been placed in the IPCC was betrayed. The hockey stick story reveals that the IPCC allowed a deeply flawed study to dominate the Third Assessment Report, which suggests the possibility of bias in the Report-writing…
…The result is in the bottom panel of Figure 6 (“Censored”). It shows what happens when Mann’s PC algorithm is applied to the NOAMER data after removing 20 bristlecone pine series. Without these hockey stick shapes to mine for, the Mann method generates a result just like that from a conventional PC algorithm, and shows the dominant pattern is not hockey stick-shaped at all. Without the bristlecone pines the overall MBH98 results would not have a hockey stick shape, instead it would have a pronounced peak in the 15th century.
Of crucial importance here: the data for the bottom panel of Figure 6 is from a folder called CENSORED on Mann’s FTP site. He did this very experiment himself and discovered that the PCs lose their hockey stick shape when the Graybill-Idso series are removed. In so doing he discovered that the hockey stick is not a global pattern, it is driven by a flawed group of US proxies that experts do not consider valid as climate indicators. But he did not disclose this fatal weakness of his results, and it only came to light because of Stephen McIntyre’s laborious efforts.
Another extension to our analysis concerned the claims of statistical significance in Mann’s papers. We found that meaningless red noise could yield hockey stick-like proxy PCs. This allowed us to generate a “Monte Carlo” benchmark for statistical significance. The idea is…. …. In other words, MBH98 and MBH99 present results that are no more informative about the millennial climate history than random numbers. …”
Best news for months in this whole miserable saga. Just waiting for the BBC to feature the item in its news and current affairs output. Pigs will fly first!!!!
For years, I’ve amused myself with:
You could put baseball scores into Mann’s Climate Model and it would create the Hockey Stick.
And condemned Mann’s reckless ambition.
He “disappeared” two indelible geological events.
The Medieval Warm Period, which provided enough prosperity to build magnificent churches and cathedrals.
The Little Ice Age, with recurring famines.
The same thing happened, as I recall, when Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” went before a British Court and was found, essentially, not to be a “documentary” but a naked propaganda vehicle loaded with scientific gaffs.
Truth always wins in the end, but it is often financially ruinous and personally risky, and not a gauntlet to be run by the squeamish. Hat’s off to Tim Ball.
GREAT news and congrats to Mr. Ball !
Mann’s tweet…
Mann delayed presenting the data that the court ordered him to present for over a year, and he claims that he is thinking about appealing the dismissal?
This guy really wants to land in jail for contempt of court.
Mann is all hat and no cattle. A total fraud from the word go. He’ll never spend a day in court with Steyn, he’s too much of a coward.
Note the weasel wording “we will likely challenge” not “we will challenge”. If his lawyers are any good, they’re advising him to quietly drop it, and there will be no challenge as long as they can keep his over-inflated ego in check.
I believe that the official, original 2011 claim against Dr. Ball is this:
https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Mann-Ball%20Libel%20Claim.pdf
I’m still not clear why the case was dismissed. I’d like to see the official account of that too, before I accept the point of view of a victory.
What exactly in the assertions by Dr. Ball and the other defendants was incorrect? The truth is supposed to be a legitimate defense against libel and slander. I read the copy of the suit to which you linked at “The Smog BOG“ (sic intended) and found the accusations to be well supported by evidence posted all over the Internet, even the evidence hidden from the public.
Oh, I’m not questioning Dr. Ball’s characterization of Dr. Mann. I’m just curious to see an exact wording by the court stating the court’s official judgment of Dr. Ball’s characterization.
If the court does not see the view we favor or at least show an openness to the view we favor or an allowance for the view we favor, then I’m not sure where the victory lies.
Why EXACTLY was the case dismissed? I’m wanting to see the court record of this and the explanation of this.
According to both parties, it was dismissed because of delays.
There was no ruling on the merits of the case.
Good news but the fat lady has yet to sing.
yaba daba do
fantastic news made my day
I like WUWT.
The 30 minute delay of comments posted, kills any hope of a conversation.
Now I see a post about …..Hajj’s with comments closed.
Another one bites the dust…
Gives me at least some faith in the court system. There are at least some judges out there that do their sworn duty to uphold the law and follow the law as it is written.
Too many judges today make up the law or twist the law to their own biases. A judge with integrity knows his full duty is to the law itself.
Tim Ball ==> Congrats and Well Done — that’s a long time to wait for Justice!
I am an American lawyer, not a Canadian lawyer, so I can’t speak with authority about the Canadian courts. Nevertheless here are a few thoughts: 1) A dismissal for delay is not something that would accidently sneak up on a lawyer such as a missed deadline. There would have numerous loud and clear signals before a court would take the extraordinary step of dismissing a case for this reason. It is reasonable to presume that Mann defaulted on purpose because he did not want a trial on the merits or did not want to comply with discovery. 2) Mann’s assertion that there is no written decision is certainly wrong. Courts speak through their journals. A statement from the bench cannot dismiss a case 3) In America each side pays their own attorney fees. In the English system and I presume the Canadian system, the loser pays the winners attorneys fees. I am not sure whether the rule applies only to a winner on the merits and perhaps not to one who wins on a procedural grounds. It might make a difference whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
I wonder any Canadian or UK barristers could weigh in?
last action on the case was august 20.
go get the file
Here is the order from the docket:
“Terms of Order
Order that the claim made by Plaintiff be dismissed
Costs will follow the event and of the action since the action is dismissed.”
My thoughts: 1. The dismissal is with predjudice as the judge would have indicated “without predjudice” if he intended to allow refilling.
2. There is no mention yes or no on Dr. Balls’s attorney fees. I would assume the judge is waiting for Dr. Balls attorney to file a motion for fees with documentation of the amount.
3. Mann says he is likely to appeal. Good luck with that. The docket indicates it was set for a jury trial in February of 2017. More than two years later the case isn’t ready for trial for reasons the Judge assigned to Mann. The standard for appellate review in US would be abuse of discretion that would require a showing that the judge acted arbitrarily or capriciously.
MANY THANKS FOR THE INFO. MUCH APPRECIATED.
(Stop capitalizing every letter) SUNMOD
JAMES SHUTIAK CA EMBA CMC CFE CPA (RETIRED) August 24, 2019 at 6:29 pm
(Stop capitalizing every letter) SUNMOD
SUNMOD please cut him some slack Macular is a degenerative eye illness. It is incurable.
I have seen other places he has posted, all caps.
His vision is going.
Sorry if I spoke out of turn James.
https://www.aao.org/eye-health/diseases/amd-macular-degeneration
michael
Browsers have the built-in capability to zoom in or zoom out, thus increasing the size of the fonts and all other content on a web page. Locate the feature under “Settings.” Some have a key combination (such as CTRL +) that ZOOMS IN (CTRL – ZOOMS OUT). Most email clients do as well. For example, in Thunderbird, “CTRL +” (Control key and the + key) together will toggle the email like a “ZOOM IN” so that fonts and images are larger. CTRL and – will ZOOM OUT…and their is also the “Magnifier” ap that turns your cursor into a magnifier.
Smart phones should also have a similar capability.
Most OSes have a way to magnify text, browsers have mouse keyboard shortcuts.
Shift-scrollwheel for windows and linux.
TEWS_Pilot August 26, 2019 at 10:57 pm
JEHILL August 26, 2019 at 11:04 pm
Thanks for commenting guys. the problem with Macular is that you can sees ome things but not others.
As the link states you can the numbers on a clock but not the hands. Magnifying will not help.
I think he may have a program that transfers lower case to all caps, so he can read it.
Macular is a nasty disease you can no longer trust your eyes. Learned about it many years age. Missed it when he first named it.
michael
MS Word has a “Format –>Change Case–>Sentence Case” feature that converts all capitals to sentence case, so he could type in all caps and edit, then copy into a blank Word document, then convert to sentence case, copy that version, then paste it into the comment box. Other word processors may have that feature as well.
TEWS_Pilot August 27, 2019 at 11:38 am
He may not know of sentence case feature, I didn’t. Also he may just type into comment box, (I do) and run with that.
anyway at this point I think it is moot
michael
After a bit more research it appears to me that the phrase “cost follows the event” includes an award of attorney fees to the winner as is the usual practice in Canada.
GREAT NEWS INDEED!!!
(No more all letter capitalization) SUNMOD
Great thanks!
SUNMOD: AND WHERE DO THE CAPS HURT YOUR DELIUCATE BRAIN (IF YOU HAVE ONE???) MOST??? I HAVE MACULAR AND CAPS HELP ME CATCH MORE OF MY TYPOS. I DENOUNCE FRAUDSTERS AND HAVE FOR MANY DECADES. WHY DON’T YOU FIND SOMETHING USEFUL TO DO WITH YOUR SAD LIFE???
(It is based on blog POLICY, “Publishing comments in SHOUTING MODE (all caps) is not acceptable.”, your rudeness doesn’t help you here, your comment stays in the mod bin) SUNMOD
Hi Paul,
I agree that a substantially important case being dismissed for failure to meet a deadline is a strong (but not determinative) indication of underlying problems. If Mann’s lawyer thought that Mann’s case was a strong one, he would be all over Mann to make sure that all deadlines were met.
Also,I did some research on attorney fees in Canada and apparently the losing party generally pays.
“Unlike in the U.S., where attorneys’ fees generally are not recoverable unless specifically permitted by statute or contract, in Canada, where the guiding principle is that “costs follow the event,” attorneys’ fees are awarded to the prevailing party in almost every action. In other words, the prevailing party at trial or on appeal can expect the opposing party to be ordered to pay anywhere from fifty to ninety percent of the prevailing party’s actual legal costs. Attorneys’ fees can also be awarded to the prevailing party on a motion. For instance, if a defendant brings a motion for summary judgment that is denied by the court, the defendant can be ordered to pay the plaintiff’s legal fees incurred in responding to the motion.
…. Moreover, because judges have broad discretion in determining whether to award costs, some judges may be reluctant to award attorneys’ fees against a sympathetic plaintiff, even if the plaintiff’s claim lacked merit. ” https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c2370852-7e1b-46d2-9a30-e825fac1f754
Similar to you, I am an American lawyer, not a Canadian one.
JD
Hey, calling you lawyers – is Collateral Estoppel transferable from Canadian Courts to US Courts? I’m guessing not, otherwise his attorneys would have advised him not to lose this one as, despite what his butt-kissers here say, that would not be good for the Steyn case, where significant damages against him are a possibility. ….. and Steyn will clearly take this all the way, especially now.
Collateral estoppel usually requires that the lawsuits involves the same parties and requires that a court makes factual findings on a issue in common between the two lawsuits. Neither is present here.
I think but I am not certain that US courts have discretion to apply CE to foreign judgment issued made in counties that provide substantially similar due process protections.
Hi Paul,
This probably will bore non-lawyers, but here is an article dealing with non-mutual collateral estoppel which discusses a US Supreme Court case, Parklane Hosiery v. Shore 439 U.S. 322 (1979). https://mdappblog.com/2016/05/20/non-mutual-collateral-estoppel-a-shield-but-now-clearly-also-a-sword/ Will not do extensive research on matter, but it does appear that there is some chance that Mann could be bound by a holding that his research is not protected by intellectual property principles.
JD
JD
For readers not familiar with the term collateral estoppel means that what was decided in the first suit could bar someone from litigating the same issue in a second suit under a possibly different theory. See this link for an explanation of collateral estoppel and the related doctrine of res judicata. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/res+judicata
I think there is an interesting issue regarding collateral estoppel. Mann apparently was claiming that he couldn’t turn over data because of intellectual property issues. If that is the case, the court definitely ruled against him on this issue. In long ago research I seem to remember that sometimes collateral estoppel can apply if even one party (Mann) litigated the issue although it was not litigated against another party in a different lawsuit, for example, Steyn.
I should point out that if Steyn decides to represent himself, the collateral estoppel issue is way over his head, and he almost certainly can’t win it without legal help.
JD
In reply to JDDOhio August 23rd at 10:40pm.
I am a now-retired Ontario lawyer.
In Ontario, it is an exceptional case where the losing party does NOT pay costs to the winner. I can only think of some first impression Constitutional question cases where that has happened. In the run of the mill, the loser pays. Always.
Wrt motions, the Rules require that the costs of Motions shall be fixed and payable forthwith subject to the court’s discretion to vary that practice. It is rare for a judge to do so.
In BC, it appears that the practice is that lawyers always ask, when successful, for “costs to be payable in any event of the cause, and forthwith” which has the same general end point, noting that in Ontario, it is exceptional for a Judge *not* to fix the costs and even more exceptional that they NOT be payable forthwith (exercising his discretion to overturn the usual rule).
As I read the BC Rules and cases, a Judge in BC has a much larger amount of discretion wrt interlocutory costs orders than in Ontario.
Both jurisdictions follow the common law rule: costs follow the event.
Since the action is now dismissed, the question of ‘payable forthwith wrt the motion’ is moot. It will all be payable once determined by the assessment officer.
A BC judge has the same partial v. special/substantial choice, but in addition, costs are calculated by standardized “units” for a large portion of the steps of an action, but the value of a unit varies from $60 to $170 per unit. I suspect that defamation actions will attract the highest per unit value.
I expect that the Judge will issue written Reasons: it is a slam dunk appeal if there are NO reasons! So the Judge may elucidate on his second paragraph, and specify exactly how the costs are to be determined.
( There may be other twists and vagaries of BC law and procedure relating to costs with which I am completely unfamiliar!).
I am not a lawyer but am very familiar with BC civil rules, including cost rules, as I have been involved in extended litigation at both BCSC and BCCA versus a party with essentially unlimited funds.
Chances are that the reasons will be published at https://www.bccourts.ca/supreme_court/recent_Judgments.aspx within the next few days, available to all at no cost. They could be short, merely a few paragraphs, to explain the summary dismissal of the action from the bench. They could be long, reciting the entire history of the case, in order to summarize the record in case of appeal.
Unless there are very unusual circumstances – and I’m not paying for the whole docket to look for clues – Ball will get his costs at Scale B. Dollar amounts are limited and so are hours; the winner isn’t given a blank cheque. If the parties disagree as to amount, they can take it to a court officer called a Registrar to make a decision. Registrar’s decision can be appealed to the judge if party(ies) don’t like it.
Likely recovery against actual costs incurred: 1/3-1/2 of legal fees plus 80-90% of disbursements. In Canadian litigation, the loser pays. But the winner pays too.
A GREAT SUMMARY OF THE FACTS SIR! MUCH APPRECIATED.
Maybe folks will go buy the august 20 file for the case.
I showed you how.
Mosher writes “Maybe folks will go buy the august 20 file for the case.”
No need. Mann’s tweet and Ball’s post here sum up the situation. If the last update showed otherwise then whichever party was at advantage would be shouting it from the rooftops.
As one who donated a modest bit to Dr Ball’s defense fund I can now say it was the best money I spent that year. Dang that was a long time ago. Great to hear.
Hey Tim, if you want to put up a “Victory Celebration” button on your site I’ll chip in for some brew for you. You’ve earned it and way more. A big thank you for having the intellectual honesty and intestinal fortitude to stick it out.
Great News, Lets Hope Mark Steyn gets/Has got? a good result too.
https://www.steynonline.com/7734/the-vertigo-at-the-top-of-the-stick
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/12/mann_vs_steyn_the_trial_of_the_century__121528.html#!
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/judge-finds-written-attack-on-climate-scientist-too-ludicrous-to-be-libel/
Excellent news. I first heard Dr Ball dismiss the then still muted hysteria about climate change back in 1996. He has made a lot of sense for a long long time.
“This is a developing story, I’ll add more as we know more”
Please let us know when you are up to speed. It’s been two days now…_
Dr. Tim Ball is not a climate skeptic . He is just an honest scientist.
The vast majority of skeptics are honest, and many of them are scientists to boot.
Perhaps Dr. Ball needs to have Mann declared a vexatious litigant.
https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/general/b.c.-takes-steps-to-stem-tide-of-vexatious-litigants/275384