They claimed: “Fair Comment”
Fact: The Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear that for a “fair comment” defence to apply, the comment itself must be based on fact. Everyone knows that Mr. Brown's remarks were factually incorrect. The defence is also invalid if the individual was motivated by malice. Given Mr. Brown's continued insistence on using defamatory language after his initial comments, malice on his part can only be assumed.
They claimed: “Brown’s comments are privileged”
Fact: Mr. Brown is a lawyer, and he well knows that privilege only applies to parliamentary proceedings and not untruthful comments made outside of the House.
(Source: Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Legislative Assembly Act)
They claimed: “Premier should appear before a lawsuit by rural horse breeders”
Fact: This is completely irrelevant, and reference to this lawsuit against the Crown is a shameful attempt by Mr. Brown’s lawyer to promote another case that he is working on.
They claimed: "Expedited timetable”
Fact: If Mr. Brown wanted a quick resolution, he would have immediately apologized after making his untruthful remarks. He could retract his comments and apologize today and this matter could conclude.