It appears one of Canada's largest media companies won't be appealing the result of a lengthy defamation lawsuit involving former television war correspondent Arthur Kent.
Last month a judge ruled Postmedia and its former columnist Don Martin defamed Kent while he was running for a seat in the Alberta legislature in 2008.
Justice Jo'Anne Strekaf awarded Kent a total of $200,000 in damages from the defendants — $150,000 from Martin and Postmedia for the article, plus an additional $50,000 from Postmedia for continuing to publish the article online.
She has since added interest to it, bringing the final tally to $261,764.38.
"I can confirm that last Thursday the process in which the defendants paid the damages plus interest was completed," said Kent.
Kent, who got the nickname "Scud Stud" while reporting for NBC during the Persian Gulf war, was a star candidate for the Alberta Progressive Conservatives during the 2008 campaign, but was on record disagreeing with some party policies.
Martin's column, which used unnamed sources, painted Kent as an out-of-control egomaniac who had alienated party staff.
"Alberta Conservatives have bestowed problem candidate Arthur Kent with a less flattering designation as he noisily blusters his way through their reeling election campaign — the Dud Scud," Martin wrote.
The 30-day deadline for Postmedia to give notice to appeal the June 8 ruling was last Friday. Nothing has been filed with the court.
Postmedia did not immediately respond to a request for a comment.
"That day came and went without us being served a notice of appeal. We've had no comment from Canada's largest newspaper chain or Mr. Martin as to their plans," said Kent.
"We assume that they have identified no viable ground of appeal. That has us asking ourselves, if they are not going to appeal, do they accept the ruling? It's time to 'fess up."
The issue of court costs is still outstanding. Kent said submissions on costs have to be submitted by July 29 with a hearing scheduled for Oct. 28.
Justice Strekaf ruled that the article "when read as a whole would cause right-thinking members of society to think less of Mr. Kent.''
She said the damage to Kent's reputation was "exacerbated by the exaggerations and sarcastic tone in the article, by aspects of Mr. Martin's conduct and by the unfairness to Mr. Kent from Mr. Martin's failure to provide him with an opportunity to respond prior to publication of the article."
"While the article did not accuse Mr. Kent of any illegal or immoral acts, it characterized him as an egotistical, politically naive, arrogant candidate whose campaign was in disarray," she wrote.
Comments