Page: 2
[4]
The plaintiff seeks damages and an order requiring that the posts be taken down from the
defendant’s website, where they have remained since being posted in 2008, 2009 and 2010.
The parties
[5]
The plaintiff Khurrum Awan is a lawyer, currently practising in Saskatchewan. When
the events giving rise to this litigation began, he was a law student at Osgoode Hall Law School
in Toronto. The plaintiff testified that he is a practising Muslim, and at the relevant time had a
general interest in law, politics and human rights.
[6]
The defendant Ezra Levant is an outspoken political commentator, journalist and blogger.
At all material times, Levant has been the owner of ezralevant.com. He is the sole author of the
blog postings that are at issue in this action. He is also a lawyer and has maintained his licence
to practise law in Alberta since 2000.
Events giving rise to the British Columbia hearing
[7]
The course of events began with a cover story entitled “The future belongs to Islam” in
the October 23, 2006 edition of Maclean’s magazine. The article was an excerpt from a book by
Mark Steyn entitled America Alone.
[8]
The plaintiff became aware of the article at about the time it was published. He learned
of it from a press release of the Canadian Council on American Islamic Relations (“CCAIR”),
which expressed concern about the content of the article.
[9]
The plaintiff testified that when he read the article he was pretty shocked by the central
theme that Muslims were to be feared by virtue of their numbers and the rate they were
multiplying in Western societies.
He believed that the article treated Muslims as an
undifferentiated group with an agenda for a bloody takeover of Western societies. He thought
that the notion that there were moderate Muslims who were ordinary loyal citizens was
undermined by the article.
[10] The plaintiff discussed the article with friends and colleagues at Osgoode Hall Law
School and a related legal clinic. Four law students came together over their concerns about the
article, specifically the plaintiff, Naseem Mithoowani, Muneeza Sheikh and Ali Ahmed.
[11] The plaintiff and one of the other students, Ms. Mithoowani, testified at trial. They gave
a consistent account of the steps the students took leading up to a meeting with Maclean’s that
took place on March 30, 2007. This evidence was not significantly challenged.
2014 ONSC 6890 (CanLII)
the defence of fair comment, and to a limited degree the defences of justification (i.e., truth) and
qualified privilege. The defendant also takes the position that due to his reputation as an
outspoken provocateur and troublemaker, none of what he said would be understood as
defamatory in any event.