Lawyers for former Langley MLA, cabinet minister, and mayoral candidate Rich Coleman have denied any wrongdoing in a defamation case launched by Township Mayor Eric Woodward.
At issue are an online article and a string of videos that surfaced starting in the summer of 2024 and continued into early 2025. The videos claim that a "political insider got a very special deal at the expense of Langley taxpayers."
They were referencing the purchase of several fire trucks by the Township in 2024.
Woodward, Councillor Tim Baillie, and Coun. Rob Rindt launched the lawsuit on May 1 against a group of "John Does," as the people behind a website called the Langley Monitor, and the Langley Township Watch Facebook group. An article about the fire truck purchase was posted on the Langley Monitor in 2024, and the videos first appeared on the Facebook group in 2024 and 2025.
Late this summer, the lawsuit was updated to identify a number of defendants. In addition to Coleman, the lawsuit named Coun. Kim Richter and her husband Bob Richter, Langley businessman Thomas Martini and his firm Lorval Developments, Lower Mainland political operative Micah Haince, Jean Francoi Louis Hardy, Kalim Kassam, and a numbered B.C. company owned by Coleman.
In a response to the civil claim, filed on Oct. 6 in B.C. Supreme Court, lawyers for Coleman and his company denied most of the claims made by Woodward, Rindt, and Baillie.
Coleman denied having anything to do with the Langley Monitor site at any point, said he has never been the administrator of the Langley Township Watch Facebook group, and that any associations between Coleman and the Langley Township Watch group had been severed around Dec. 24, 2024, before the videos were published. They were published "without the defendants' input, influence, or control," Coleman's response says.
Previous "financial contributions" to Langley Township Watch did not constitute participation in the videos, the response said.
It also argued that there was no defamation, because the videos raised "justifiable concerns."
Later, the claim says that the comments in question are "justified and substantially true" and that they were "made in good faith and constitute fair comment."
The response also says the lawsuit was brought, because Woodward allegedly "harbours resentment towards Coleman" following Coleman's mayoral run in 2022, and that Woodward allegedly "brought this action, at least in part, to besmirch Coleman's reputation in the run up to the next election cycle."
None of the claims made in the original statement of claim filed by Woodward, Rindt, and Baillie, or in Coleman's response, has been tested in a court of law.
Coleman's response also invokes the Prevention of Public Participation Act (PPPA), and says the lawsuit is "a classic example of litigation against public participation, and is brought for an improper purpose."
Lawsuits intended to stifle criticism are often known as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP), and the PPPA is intended to prevent those suits from going forward. People targeted for speaking out on a matter of public interest can apply for a case to be dismissed.
Coleman is so far the only one of the defendants who has filed a response with the court.
