Lawyers for 91原创-Abbotsford MLA Harman Bhangu have updated their response to a claim of libel filed earlier this spring by a trucking union.
Bhangu was sued on May 26 by Teamsters Union Local 213, a court action sparked by comments Bhangu made in the B.C. Legislature, and posts he later shared of those comments to social media sites.
The Teamsters lawsuit claimed Bhangu made "false, malicious, and defamatory" claims about the union.
Bhangu, himself a member of Teamsters Local 213, gave a speech in the Legislature on May 8 that accused the union local of "blatant corruption and systemic nepotism" for the way the union dispatches truckers to road construction jobs operating under the province's Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs).
He called out a specific union official and alleged that his family members had received positions as brokers, empowered to choose which truckers get calls for certain jobs in the CBA system.
Anything said in the Legislature is protected by parliamentary privilege 鈥� MLAs can't be sued for the content of their speeches there.
But the Teamsters argued in their claim that Bhangu's introductions to the video clips he posted online repeated the same claims, outside of the Legislature.
The Teamsters action asked the court to levy damages against Bhangu, and for an injunction against the MLA making any similar statements in the future.
None of the allegations in the Teamsters civil claim has been proven in court.
Bhangu's lawyer posted a quick response to the lawsuit, which was updated with a new filing on July 9.
The nine-point response includes a number of arguments, including that Bhangu's posts "constitute responsible communication on a matter of public interest, namely whether the plaintiff [the Teamsters] is properly administering and complying with the terms and conditions of the collective agreements in the trucking industry to which it is a party鈥�"
It also argues that Bhangu's statements are based on fact, and were published on "an occasion of qualified privilege."
Bhangu was not motivated by malice, and the Teamsters have suffered no loss nor damages as a result of his statements, the amended claim says.
None of the statements in either claim or response have been tested in court.
