Talk:Elisa Hategan

Legal issues

@ToBeFree:@Czello:@Salander2000:@208.98.222.28:@Asheiou:@My Pants Metal:@Hey man im josh:@Smartse:@Bearcat:@1174.119.232.205:@Bkissin:@ForsythiaJo:@Skywatcher68: I see there's been conflict over a "legal issues" section for the article. How should such a section be worded? Hagar the Wonderful (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't comment. The only thing I ever did here was find the article in a couple of overly general container categories that aren't supposed to contain individual people at all, and move her to more specific subcategories — I've never even heard of this person otherwise, and the entire "legal issues" thing happened only afterward. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I came across this while patrolling recent changes. I see no reason why simply mentioning that the lawsuit exists, backed up by a reliable source, can't be included. I have no opinion otherwise.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The source in question is this one from Canadian Lawyer which looks to be a reliable source. I see no problems with the way that it was summarised in the article and it was compliant with WP:BLP. Unless someone comes up with a source which demonstrates that that is incorrect, the content should be replaced. I don't think anyone has had issues with the other paragraphs/sources. SmartSE (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Hagar the Wonderful the source here looks reliable, I don't see why it was removed > Asheiou (they/them • talk) 17:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

It looks like there is a consensus to restore the legal issues section. Can someone re-add this (below) to the article? 208.98.222.16 (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: I rewrote the section to be more concise and focussed on factual reporting. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Actualcpscm: Thanks, but please change US$200,000 to Canadian dollars. 208.98.222.83 (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done with a nice  Self-trout. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Please change "argued" to "ruled" - lawyers make arguments, judges make rulings. 205.189.56.244 (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Courts do issue rulings, but these rulings are based on arguments. When a judge writes that a law applies to the facts of a case in a certain way, this is an argument that forms part of a ruling. The Court ruled in favour of Moore, but the Justice argued the reasons for this ruling. It's completely clear to any reasonable reader that the cited argument forms part of a judicial process and is not just the Justice's personal opinion. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Actualcpscm: "The suit was dismissed, with presiding Justice Jane Ferguson arguing that Hategan had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her claims" makes it sound like the plaintiff has some evidence, just not enough, and that the suit was not devoid of merit. That's a far cry from the judge writing “Instead of providing supporting evidence, Ms. Hategan relies on speculation, unfounded allegations, and conspiracy theories" and saying the case was "frivolous", "vexatious" and a "waste of the time and resources of the courts". In other words, the current version misrepresents the tone and content of the judge's ruling. I think including at least some direct quotation or at least an accurate paraphrasing of what the judge said is required here. 208.98.222.3 (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Legal issues

In 2018, Hategan sued former Canadian Jewish Congress CEO Bernie Farber and Elizabeth Moore, a former member of the Heritage Front turned antiracist educator, for $200,000 accusing them of various transgressions including conspiring against Hategan, uttering false statements and "appropriation" of Hategan's life story and personality.

Ontario Superior Court Judge Jane Ferguson dismissed the case calling Hategan's claims speculative, frivolous, and vexatious, based on conspiracy theories, and a “waste of the time and resources of the courts”.

In her ruling, Ferguson wrote: “The contention between the parties rests on Ms. Hategan’s belief that she was the ‘only young woman who played any role whatsoever in the collapse of the Heritage Front’ and that she has therefore ‘earned the right to state unequivocally that I contributed to the shutting down of the Heritage Front'."

Ferguson ruled that “Instead of providing supporting evidence, Ms. Hategan relies on speculation, unfounded allegations, and conspiracy theories.”

Moore countersued Hategan for defamation, invasion of privacy, and appropriation of personality. The court ruled in favour of Moore, awarded her $200,000 in damages and issuing an injunction against Hategan.

In March 2022, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the registrar’s order dismissing Hategan's appeal due to time delays, and refused a motion to grant additional time to file an appeal. In its decision, the appeal court commented that Ferguson's observations that Hategan's claims were "speculative, frivolous, and vexatious" were "well-founded".