For Aldergrove property owner Robin Scory to win $15 million compensation from his critics, a B.C. Supreme Court judge would probably have to agree that Scory’s reputation was hurt by the use of the word “landfill” to describe his proposal to dump 100,000 truckloads of dirt over 66 acres of the 160-acre parcel he owns at 7306 264 St.
According to written documents filed by Scory in the B.C. Supreme Court registry in Chilliwack, the use of the word was defamatory because Webster’s dictionary defines a landfill as the “disposal of garbage, rubbish, etc. by burying it under soil or earth.”
Scory claims the word was used on hand-written notices posted on his property by two of the three defendants named in his lawsuit, the Glen Valley Watershed Society (GVWS) and Sian Krannitz, to “directly lead members of the public to believe that Robin Scory’s intent was to build/develop a garbage dump…”
Scory said he applied for the fill permit to “enhance the agricultural capability of his land.”
Both the GVWS and Scory denied posting the notices Tuesday in Chilliwack.
The lawyer for Krannitz, Nathan Muirhead, said even if the word was used by his client, it cannot be considered defamatory.
Local newspapers used “landfill” to describe the proposal and the Township of Langley did as well in an official written record of a meeting on the matter, Muirhead noted.
Muirhead said Scory made several references to disparaging remarks in his court filings without saying exactly what they were.
In one document, Scory complains about a reference to the Aldergrove property as “environmentally sensitive,” something Muirhead said could not possibly injure a reputation.
Expressing concern about the possible ecological impact of the proposal “is not saying that Mr. Scory is a bad person who is out to hurt the environment,” Muirhead added.
Scory, who did not attend the trial, also filed written material that complained about the contents of a critical report that estimated the fill at 1.2 million cubic metres when it was in fact 750,000.
Muirhead said that was a simple error, not malicious.
Scory maintains the comments caused the Township of Langley to refuse approval of his application and he is demanding compensation of $6.5 million each from Krannitz and the GVWS and $2 million from Jack Dewitte, the third defendant named in the Scory lawsuit over comments Dewitte made during a Langley Township public meeting on the proposal.
The proposal was not rejected outright, only delayed.
Muirhead said Scory’s application did not provide enough information, for example calling the proposed fill “environmentally friendly” without giving details.
The lawyer said instead of a “misguided” lawsuit, Scory should re-file his application with the additional information the Township asked for.
At the close of arguments, Justice Catherine Bruce said she would postpone her decision until after another judge has ruled on Dewitte, who went to court earlier this year in a bid to get the lawsuit against him dismissed.
Once a decision is made in the Dewitte case, Bruce will make her ruling known on a similar application by the other two defendants.
Krannitz and the GVWS refused to be interviewed about the matter, directing all questions to their lawyer.
Scory could not be reached. His court documents give a Surrey business address with no phone number.
