LONDON (August 26, 1993) - Board of Inquiry Chairperson Ajit John denied a motion to quash summonses requesting London Free Press city editor Mary Nesbitt and reporter Greg Van Moorsel to appear before the Board on Monday, August 30, 1993.
The subpoenas were initiated by Ontario Human Rights Commission counsel Geraldine Sanson. The board was investigating alleged racist comments made by Cheyenne Ave. apartment landlord Elijah Elieff that were published in the London Free Press on November 8, 1989, and which became the focal point of the complaint filed against him.
The subpoenas required Nesbitt to produce Van Moorsel's notes relating to Elieff's alleged comments. They were issued at the insistence of Commission counsel after a previous summons (issued by Elieff's agent, Fp leader Robert Metz) requesting an alleged tape recording containing the alleged comments resulted in an admission by Free Press counsel that "Nesbitt does not have nor has she ever had possession or control over any such taped recording, nor is she aware of its existence. She has consulted with Mr. Van Moorsel and he is now virtually certain that no taped recording of Mr. Elieff's comments was made. In any event, none can be located."
The existence of a tape recording of Elieff's comments was alluded to in previous testimony before the Board by Van Moorsel, who at the time also testified that short-hand notes containing the comments were taken and that "all of that material was turned over to our city editor (Mary Nesbitt) as soon as we realized that the Ontario Human Rights Commission was involved, because I was phoned and asked for that material."
In her signed affidavit accompanying the motion to quash the summonses, Nesbitt argued that the subpoenas were an abuse of process and infringed on press rights entrenched in Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
"The press cannot be or be perceived to be agents of government, government agencies, industry, police, the courts or any other organization, institution or group," said Nesbitt. "Such independence is fundamental to the press's credibility."
"Quite the contrary," argued Fp leader Robert Metz, who voluntarily acted as Elieff's agent before the Board of Inquiry. "Independence is fundamental to press freedom, not credibility, and no one is threatening press freedom. Credibility depends upon an accurate, contextual reporting of the facts and it is the facts of the case that have been called into question.
"Either the alleged notes confirm what was being reported in the Free Press or they do not," said Metz. "In actual fact, what's in the notes is less significant than the willingness of the London Free Press to protect its credibility by appearing before the Board.
"There are too many unanswered questions in this case," said Metz, "and all the evidence regarding Elieff's alleged racist comments originated at the London Free Press. By refusing to appear, Elieff will have been denied the right to face his main accusers."
After hearing arguments made by London Free Press counsel Renato M. Gasparotto, HRC counsel Sanson, and Elieff's agent Robert Metz, Chairperson John ruled:
In its August 19 and August 28 coverage of the dispute between the Board and the paper, the London Free Press knowingly printed false information relating to the summonses and additionally reported inaccurate and misleading comments that it attributed to Fp leader Robert Metz.
In its August 19 coverage, whose writer identified herself as "Erin Anderson," but whose name did not appear on the article, it was reported that "The refusal of the London Free Press to supply a reporter's notes for the Ontario Human Rights Commission... raises questions about the credibility of the newspaper, says the landlord's representative." But it was not the "landlord's representative" (i.e., Metz) who made this comment; it was London Free Press city editor Mary Nesbitt who, in her signed affidavit, brought up the issue of credibility by saying: "...independence is fundamental to the press's credibility."
Metz was also quoted as saying: "If anything, the whole credibility of the situation depends on the appearance (of those notes)," with the phrase "of those notes" placed in brackets, meaning that the reporter was conscious of the fact that Metz did not use those words. Metz was not talking about the notes - which he stressed were of no interest to him; he was referring to Van Moorsel's own testimony.
The article incorrectly reported that "Metz said... the notes are necessary to add credence to Van Moorsel's statements." Metz actually told the reporter that Van Moorsel himself brought up the existence of the notes to defend his own credibility.
On August 28, 1993, the London Free Press printed an article by reporter John Hamilton which contained a totally false paragraph: "Robert Metz, the landlord's representative, had sought the notes at the inquiry investigating alleged racist comments by Elieff..."
Yet, at no time throughout the proceedings had Metz ever expressed any interest in Van Moorsel's notes, nor were they relevant to his arguments. But the notes are relevant to the Commission. In her signed affidavit, city editor Mary Nesbitt fully acknowledged that she was aware that "Robert Metz advised the Board that he... was not interested in the notes made by Mr. Van Moorsel." She further acknowledged "that the present outstanding subpoenas of me and Mr. Van Moorsel were issued at the insistence of the Commission counsel and not Mr. Elieff."
Add to this the fact that two separate Freedom Party media releases (dated August 18 and 26) to the London Free Press emphasized that the subpoenas "were issued at the insistence of Commission counsel," it would have been impossible to conclude that Metz "sought the notes" as reported by the paper.
When Metz later confronted reporter John Hamilton with his glaring misrepresentation of the facts, Hamilton told him that it was an irrelevant issue and refused to set the record straight. He also refused Metz's request to report the fact that a previously alleged tape recording of Elieff's comments (which was reported by the paper) did not, in fact, exist.
The London Free Press has apparently tried to deflect public attention from the fact that its credibility is actually being questioned by an official Board of Inquiry, at the initiation of that Board, not that of the defence for the respondent. By making it appear that the source of the attack on its credibility is London landlord Elijah Elieff and Fp leader Robert Metz, the paper can maintain the illusion that the charges against it might simply be a contrivance as part of Elieff's defence.
London Free Press editors have good reason to be uncomfortable, should knowledge that their paper's credibility is actually being questioned by an independent official body become more public.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Page
last updated on April 28, 2002
