Shepherd's lawyer Howard Levitt doesn't understand why two Wilfrid Laurier University professors would sue the former teacher's assistant

The defense lawyer for a former Wilfrid Laurier University teaching assistant is calling allegations against his client by two professors "ludicrous."

Howard Levitt, who represents Lindsay Shepherd, says he doesn't understand why Nathan Rambukkana and Herbert Pimlott would sue her. The two professors allege Shepherd is responsible for the broad publication of a recorded conversation in November 2017.

The papers have not been submitted yet, according to Levitt.

Rambukkana and Pimlott are currently being sued by controversial author and University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson for defamation, stemming from that conversation.

The pair, though, maintain their comments were not defamatory but argue in a third-party claim that they could not have known the statements would be recorded or disseminated outside the meeting.

They allege Shepherd had "power and control'' over the recording and the distribution of the conversation, and meant for the contents of the meeting to potentially become widely available and discussed.

Therefore, they argue, should the court find Peterson suffered damages or injuries, those would be "attributable to Shepherd and her publication and dissemination'' of the recording.

If that's the case, Levitt wonders why they wouldn't go after media outlets and others who shared "that awful tape of her inquisition" as well.

"She's unemployed, she's no longer with the university, and now they're suing her," he said, "It's just so outrageous, it's hard to articulate in language."

Shepherd has reached out to KitchenerToday stating that she is in fact employed.

"She has no money, so the only purpose one would think they could have is to try to intimidate her into dropping her ($3.6 million dollar lawsuit against the university, the two professors and a bureaucrat filed over the summer). That is the obvious inference from the conduct."

In that suit filed by Shepherd, she alleges the actions of those parties "have rendered her unemployable in academia."

"Let's put this in perspective," Levitt says, "If she had not tape recorded that interrogation, no one would believe it. If it wasn't issued publicly, no one would accept that something so outrageous could have happened in a university campus."

Levitt says Shepherd will fight the allegations against her.

Those allegations have not yet been proven in court.

And Levitt, still looking into the motive of the new suit, says this is a situation the Ontario government should pay attention to, wondering if any taxpayer money is being used to fund the action by the professors.

"I don't know that it is, but certainly in the university's case, it is. In the faculty association's case, I don't know where its funds come from. But to the extent that comes from the university ultimately, that's taxpayer money then it's a public outrage," he said.

"This is a good case for (Ontario) Premier (Doug) Ford and the Ontario government to use the new free speech on campus legislation to remove Wilfrid Laurier's funding. That's the only suitable outcome."

"If they're using their money to sue Lindsay Shepherd, then we should respond in kind and remove Wilfrid Laurier's money and ability to do this."

The legislation Levitt speaks of mandates universities and colleges to introduce free speech policy by January 1, 2019.

In a statement issued in August, Laurier says they value the importance placed on free speech by the province, noting they've taken steps including a Statement on Freedom of Expression developed by a task force.