Article content continued

Accordingly, while these Defendants deny that the Plaintiff has suffered any damages as a result of the recording of the impugned words being posted to YouTube, the fact is that the plaintiff himself and Shepherd are solely responsible for any damages flowing therefrom,” the Statement of Defence says.

Lawyers for the other two co-defendants, Laurier professors Nathan Rambukkana and Herbert Pimlott, have not yet filed a statement of defence.

Peterson’s suit cited 14 defamatory statements spoken, including a comparison of Peterson’s comments to a speech by Adolf Hitler, comparing Peterson’s views to alt-right or white supremacist opinions, comments that Peterson was “academically suspect” and exhibits “charlatanism,” and a statement that Peterson was “spreading transphobia.”

“These defendants deny that any of impugned words allegedly spoken by Joel are capable of conveying the defamatory meanings alleged,” the defence asserted.

The defence statement suggests there’s “inescapable irony” in the fact Peterson rose to prominence defending free speech and now seeks to cause university professors “to be more circumspect in their actions and words.” It argues the defendants comments were made “in good faith and without malice on matters of public interest, including protecting the gender identity of trans students and preventing the spread of trans-phobia.”

It asserts the university and co-defendants were not responsible for creating or releasing the tape, that Peterson had prior knowledge the audio recording would be released, and that Peterson experienced “significantly increased financial and professional success” since the recording went public.

The defence also argued this was a private meeting so the public airing wasn’t forseeable.

Howard Levitt, Peterson’s and Shepherd’s lawyer. called that a “ludicrous assertion. This is 2018 and everybody has a recording device and so this is completely forseeable,” Levitt said.

“(Shepherd) recorded this to defend herself after enduring an egregious, shameful interrogation, which the university’s president has already apologized for. This is a complete about-face on their part. Now that they are being sued, they are putting a different head on this.