
A law firm who represented “Flexibility Convoy” organizers for the duration of the public inquiry into the use of the Emergencies Act is getting sued for defamation by a Toronto marketing consultant he suggested carried a Nazi flag to the protests in Ottawa on Jan. 29.

Brian Fox and authorities relations organization Organization Canada submitted a assertion of assert against Calgary law firm Brendan Miller on Wednesday, calling the allegation “destructive” and “character assassination without the need of basis and without having regard for the influence of his words.”

The lawsuit alleges Miller falsely recommended Fox condoned dislike connected with the Nazi flag and had engaged in a conspiracy with the Liberal authorities to discredit the protesters.

In the course of the Community Buy Crisis Commission, Miller proposed to witness David Vigneault, director of the Canadian Safety Intelligence Assistance, that Fox was the particular person photographed carrying a flag with a swastika.

Vigneault denied any information of the claim.

Miller’s allegations at the hearing echoed a conspiracy concept circulating amid convoy supporters on social media, dependent on partially obscured photographs of a gentleman carrying the flag.

The claim drew an rapid reaction from Organization Canada, a Toronto-primarily based organization exactly where Fox serves as a communications and disaster reaction marketing consultant.

The firm known as the allegation “absurd” and “despicable” and said Fox wasn’t even in Ottawa at the time. Further more, the organization said Fox was a Conservative and had supported Pierre Poilievre in the leadership race.

In the assertion of claim, filed in the Ontario Superior Courtroom of Justice, Fox and Company allege: “These assertions are patently wrong. Mr. Fox has not been in Ottawa given that 2019 when he attended the Manning conservative action convention. Neither Business nor Mr. Fox were in any way associated, possibly for or from, the Freedom Convoy protests.”

The defamation action seeks a whole of $2 million in damages in opposition to Miller and needs he publicly retract and apologize for the allegations.

None of the allegations in the lawsuit have been verified in court and Miller has not however submitted a defence versus them. He did not answer to a ask for for remark Wednesday.

Miller had also filed an application at the hearing to call Fox as a witness, stating there was proof, “the flags, and purported protestors making use of them, have been not protestors with the convoy at all, but provocateurs.”

The software was supported by an affidavit from protester Shawn Folkes, who claimed he had spoken to the person keeping a Nazi flag on Jan. 29.

“I went on to the web site for Organization Canada and uncovered Brian Fox’s profile thereon, together with a picture of him,” Folkes said in the affidavit.

“I can ensure that Brian Fox is the gentleman I met with the Nazi Flag on January 29th.”

But the lawsuit filed by Fox and Enterprise claims even Folkes questioned Miller’s cost, stating in a social media article, “I hope Miller appreciates what he’s carrying out for the reason that he’s gotta have a little something. How did he get this name?”

Miller also alleged that the photographer who took pictures of a male carrying a Confederate flag was the key minister’s photographer.

In point, the pics were taken by longtime Parliament Hill photojournalist Dave Chan, who did do the job as formal photographer for then-prime minister Paul Martin in 2004 and 2006.

Throughout the inquiry, Miller was also concerned in a bizarre incident exterior the listening to area, where he appeared to have mistaken Ottawa lobbyist Greg MacEachern for Fox and invited him to testify at the hearing. He acknowledged to reporters afterward that he had built a miscalculation and said, “Seemingly, there is certainly a lot of people today out there that appear like Mr. Fox.”

Attorneys are normally safeguarded from defamation action for matters they say in authorized proceedings. Having said that, the lawsuit statements Miller “went significantly past the position of counsel, elaborating on, repeating, justifying and amplifying the untrue assertions from the Plaintiffs exterior the Fee hearing, to many media, on social media and to everyone who would hear.”