THUNDER BAY — A pair of local anti-abortion protesters are suing a counter-protester for $2.3 million, claiming he played loud music during a 2019 rally that resulted in them suffering permanent hearing damage and neurological and psychological impairments.
The counter-protester sought to have his auto insurance company defend him in the lawsuit, but a judge has ruled his actions the day of the protest are beyond the scope of the insurance policy.
The lawsuit arises from an anti-abortion rally that took place in October 2019 near Memorial Avenue and Central Avenue.
The two plaintiffs attended the rally while the defendant participated in a counter-protest.
As part of the counter-protest, the defendant placed two large speakers on the back of his vehicle and played loud music aimed at the anti-abortion protesters.
“The Plaintiffs plead that the Defendant was negligent in playing the music at a significantly high volume and/or created a public nuisance,” reads the statement of claim filed in January 2020 and amended in March 2021. “The Plaintiffs further plead that the Defendant negligently inflicted emotional distress and nervous shock.”
The statement of claim goes on to read that the plaintiffs have suffered permanent, severe hearing loss, neurological and psychological impairments, past, present, and future loss of income, and a loss of competitive advantage.
“The Plaintiffs have sustained great pain and suffering, have received severe shock to their system, and their enjoyment of life has been lessened,” the statement of claim reads. “As a result of these injuries, they are suffering from and will continue to suffer from functional impairments which substantially prevent them from engaging in all or most of their normal activities of daily living.”
The plaintiffs are seeking $300,000 in general damages, $1 million in special damages, and an additional $1 million in aggravated, punitive, and exemplary damages.
The defendant filed a statement of defence this month denying the claims of the plaintiffs, calling them “absurd” and having “no basis in fact or law.”
According to the statement of defense, the plaintiffs were “displaying extremely graphic images of aborted fetuses” and the defendant joined approximately 30 others as part of a counter-protest.
During the counter-protest, the defendant said he played music from speakers set up on the hatch of his vehicle.
“Within five minutes of the music being turned on, [one of the Plaintiffs] walked over to [the Defendant] and threatened civil action if he did not turn the music off,” the statement of defense reads.
The statement of defence goes on to say that the defendant and the plaintiff were able to converse in front of the speakers without any issue hearing one another.
The defendant added that he was able to stand in front of the speakers while the music played and did not have any issues.
The plaintiffs eventually called the police and an officer instructed the defendant to turn off the music.
“This conversation occurred in front of the speakers,” the statement of defense reads. “To the best of [the Defendant’s] knowledge, the officer he spoke with has not suffered ‘serious and permanent injuries including, but not limited to, severe hearing loss along with neurological and psychological impairments,’ similar to those claimed by [the Plaintiffs].”
The defendant denies in the statement of defence that he was negligent in playing the music and argues the damages sought by the plaintiffs are “remote, exaggerated, and otherwise not recoverable by law.”
“[The Defendant] states that this action is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process,” the statement of defense reads.
Prior to filing the statement of defence, the defendant submitted an application seeking a declaration that his automobile insurer has a duty to defend him through his coverage in the civil action.
The insurer argued the defendants actions during the counter protest “do not arise from the use and operation of the automobile, and therefore there is no duty to defend.”
In a decision released in January 2023, a Superior Court Judge agreed with the insurer, saying the vehicle’s use was merely incidental.
“It was not the use and operation of the Vehicle that is alleged to cause the plaintiffs’ injuries in the statement of claim,” the ruling reads. “While the Vehicle is implicated, it is implicated merely as the site used by [the Defendant] to place the speakers that are alleged to have caused the damage.”
The application was ultimately dismissed and the insurer has no duty to defend the defendant in the ongoing civil action.
