Veteran war correspondent Arthur Kent has won his defamation lawsuit against Don Martin and Postmedia.
Justice Jo’Anne Strekaf awarded Kent $200,000 in general damages — $150,000 in general damages from Martin and Postmedia and another $50,000 from Postmedia for continuing to keep the article online.
“Its continued availability and the potential for it to be viewed online until November 2012 caused significant ongoing stress to Mr. Kent,” wrote Strekaf in her 60-page decision.
“He suffered substantial distress and damage as a result of the defamatory factual statements in the article that were not saved by the defences of justification or responsible communications on matters of public interest.”
Kent — who was nicknamed the “Scud Stud” for his reporting for an American network during the Persian Gulf War — has waged a prolonged lawsuit against Don Martin, Postmedia and the National Post over an article written during his bid for a seat as a Progressive Conservative in the 2008 Alberta election.
Then-National Post columnist Don Martin wrote an article about Kent’s campaign in the riding of Calgary-Currie. In the column, he referred to Kent as the “Scud Dud.”
No chance to respond, finds judge
Kent’s statements of claim say he was described in the column as having an oversized ego and an unorganized and incompetent campaign. He claimed that article injured his reputation, character and credibility.
“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,” wrote Strekaf.
“The damage was also 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.”
Strekaf also found that Martin should have given Kent the opportunity to respond to the article.
“Both the National Post and Calgary Herald refused to publish Kent’s rebuttal to the article,” reads the decision.
“There was no attempt to address any of these concerns with Mr. Kent, or to provide him with an alternative opportunity to respond to the article.”
The trial was held by judge alone after the jury was dismissed in November, with the judge citing “inflammatory” and prejudicial remarks made by Kent’s lawyer.