Don’t believe your lying eyes. According to Jurisich, DWR is the victim. “…denying the alleged misconduct and saying, in the alternative, that they were provoked by Ms. Reynolds” Funny how Jurisich still hasn’t provided an affidavit denying he robbed me of my drone. Why is that? How is it that he had his lawyers deny the robbery instead of in his own sworn words? Let’s take a guess. Given the evidence, he can’t deny what he did. I can hardly wait to sit and watch Jason examine these guys. It’s not the same as denying and spewing bullshit to the media. Whole different ball game. Can’t hide forever. Tick tock.
Below are some excerpts from https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/ca/23/02/2023BCCA0204.htm Emphasis added by me. Counter claim specifically complains of dissemination of the images and recordings and then tries to back pedal their counter claim that the PPPA does not apply to its counterclaim. Those images and videos are the evidence of what is really going on at Deep Water Recovery and is most certainly an issue important to the public. DWR’s lawyers have been trying to circumvent the Protection of Public Participation Act by using the tactics SLAPP suits achieved and are the very reason the BC Government enacted the PPP Act. It’s to ensure the guys with the big bucks can’t throw up so many legal issues that those with limited funds eventually have to give up because thousands are spent and no closer to a resolution and no end in sight.
 On July 13, 2022, DWR and Mr. Jurisich filed a response to civil claim denying the alleged misconduct and saying, in the alternative, that they were provoked by Ms. Reynolds. On the same day, DWR filed a counterclaim against Ms. Reynolds alleging trespass, nuisance, invasion of privacy and the illegal operation of a drone. The counterclaim specifically complains of Ms. Reynolds’ dissemination of the images and recordings she has collected to third parties.
 On August 30, 2022, DWR applied for a declaration that the PPPA does not apply to its counterclaim.
Why are they worried about disclosing privileged and/or confidential information? Love the ‘ironically’ situation. Sounds like a lose/lose for DWR.
 DWR has not identified how disclosing this narrow scope of additional information will cause it to, for example, disclose privileged and/or confidential information, or otherwise suffer irreparable harm. Somewhat ironically, if DWR is ultimately successful in defeating Ms. Reynolds’ application, its disclosure obligations will be wider, not narrower. That is because its counterclaim would not be dismissed and Ms. Reynolds would be entitled to discovery in relation to the allegations raised in both her claim and DWR’s counterclaim, rather than those raised in her claim alone.
Leave a Reply