Lawsuit Media Release

MEDIA RELEASE Tuesday June 17, 2025

Further to my email of a month ago regarding the hearing into my lawsuit alleging defamation against Dr. Michelle Stewart:

Justice Neil Robertson has released his decision. It is attached. In summary, I won on defamation.

1. Dr. Michelle Stewart defamed me by publicly posting on social media that my book, When Police Become Prey, The Cold, Hard Facts of Neil Stonechild’s Freezing Death, was “racist garbage.”
2. Justice Robertson also found her liable for directly inducing others to break their (book signing venue) contracts with me.
3. Justice Robertson read my book and ruled that it is “not racist.” Nor am I, as its author.

Dr. Stewart has admitted that, at the time she defamed me, she had not read my book. I find it both disappointing and alarming that an academic criticized me and my book without first doing a close textual exegesis. Society

expects a higher standard of scholarship from university professors. She not only defamed me, but has also made me lose confidence in the University of Regina. I am sincerely concerned about this. Academics should not react blindly. They have a duty to gather all the facts before taking action that could harm someone or create a false narrative.

At the time Dr. Stewart defamed me, eight years ago, she was professor of “Justice Studies.” However, until the final court hearing on May 2, 2025, she still insisted that my book was racist garbage even though she had apparently never read the book. I have emailed an open letter to University of Regina president Dr. Jeff Keshan, asking: “Are you now prepared to take action, such as educating your faculty about Canadian laws on defamation, and their duty to exercise their freedom of expression in a manner that does not unjustly defame others who are legitimately exercising their own rights?”

Excerpts from Justice Robertson’s judgment, handed down June 13, 2025:

Paragraph 31: “There is nothing in the Book, which the defendant had not even read, to support her [Dr. Stewart’s] description of it as ‘racist.’ The word ‘racist’ attacked the plaintiff’s

character and the word ‘garbage’ demeaned the plaintiff’s intellect and professional ability as a writer and journalist. This satisfies the elements of defamation by damaging

the plaintiff’s reputation. The personal attack was malicious. The defendant has not made out any of the defences, so damages should follow.”

Para. 54:  “Commentary like ‘racist garbage’ may be viewed as part of a cancel culture which, rather than debate disagreeable ideas or views, prefers to shut down discussion by ad hominem

attacks directed against the person, rather than their position. This curtailment of public debate is justified by asserting a monopoly on truth or acceptable belief. But democracy is imperilled

when people think it better to suppress or ban books than debate their merits.”

Para. 56:  [Dr. Stewart claimed in her defence that her comment of “racist garbage” referred to the book, not the author.] “Defamation is about the person, not their work. But if the content of the

Book is racist, that might be evidence that the author was racist, since an author is closely tied to their work. Having read the Book, I do not find that it is racist. The defendant’s statement

that the Book is racist is objectively false. Nor did the defendant point to anything in the Book that would support her posted comment.”

Para. 100:  “As I understand it, Dr. Stewart argues a form of responsible communication in that her life work is opposition to racism. The Stewart Affidavit at

para. 31 states:

31. … As a recognized expert in the field of colonialism and policing, it was not only my right to comment on the Book, it

was my responsibility. It was also my obligation as a responsible person living on Treaty 4 lands.”

Para. 101 “This defence fails on the failure to establish the second element of diligence in verification. The communication was reckless, not responsible.”

Para. 102: “Dr. Stewart made the post without reading the Book or at least not in full. Further, Dr. Stewart put forward no evidence to show either that the Book or Ms.

McLean was racist. This defence fails.”

Para. 113: “I reject any defence of justification. In so far as the defendant argued that she was morally compelled or justified to procure breach of the contracts, I find there was no legal justification.”

Candis McLean’s response: “In all Dr. Stewart’s high-flown, virtue-signalling verbiage such as ‘recognized expert,’ ‘my responsibility,’ ‘my obligation,’ blah, blah, blah, not once did I find her mention the word ‘truth.’ Truth is discovered by doing the hard work of following the dictates of the evidence, wherever that may lead. I am very concerned about some universities today which, according to numerous experts, have become bastions of “the anointed” (also known as “woke”) who see it as their job to force their social justice agenda on impressionistic young minds. As American scholar Thomas Sowell writes in his book, The Vision of the Anointed:

                                    “The vision of the anointed is one in which ills as poverty, irresponsible sex, and crime derive primarily from ‘society,’

rather than from individual choices and behavior. To believe in personal responsibility would be to destroy the whole

special role of the anointed, whose vision casts them in the role of rescuers of people treated unfairly by ‘society.’”

I’m far from alone in my concern for universities. I found these posts on the Internet about the anointed:

“Dismissal of evidence and alternative viewpoints: According to a review on StudioJake Media, the anointed often disregard evidence that contradicts their pre-conceived notions and dismiss those who disagree as uninformed or motivated by unworthy purposes.”

Another post: “Self-congratulation as a basis for social policy: Goodreads describes the ‘vision of the anointed’ as a framework where individuals and groups believe they are uniquely positioned to understand and solve societal problems, often leading to policies that prioritize their own sense of moral superiority over practical outcomes.”  

As a Calgary-based journalist born and educated in Saskatchewan, I have been appalled at the threats I’ve received and the drum I had banged in my face as I tried to speak about the findings in my book, When Police Become Prey: The Cold, Hard Facts of Neil Stonechild’s Freezing Death. Years ago, in my first article on the subject of Saskatoon police, depending primarily on Saskatoon media reports, my headline read: RACIST COPS. There was no question mark because I was so sure I was right. However, once given the chance to travel to Saskatoon and speak to indigenous people, I was told I got that story wrong. As, I believe, the justice system did. Do certain members of the Saskatchewan justice system place themselves among The Anointed who wished to “balance the scales”, regardless of what it takes – selecting for testimony at an inquiry, for example, only those with information inculpatory to the police while excluding those (like the five witnesses I found) with information clearly exculpatory to the police?

We must return to universities and justice systems which search for objective truth. My next book, When Police Become Prey: A Police Chief’s Struggle with Politicized Justice, will contain this quote by George Sand: “Let us accept truth, even when it surprises us and alters our views,” as well as a quote by Martin Luther King, Jr: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”       

The next intriguing question becomes: WHAT INFORMATION IN MY BOOK WAS SO FRIGHTENING TO SOCIAL JUSTICE ACTIVIST DR. MICHELLE STEWART THAT SHE ORGANIZED HER FOLLOWERS TO GET MY BOOK SIGNINGS CANCELLED? Could it be she was scared of the truth? Because if, as the evidence dictates, the Saskatoon police had nothing whatsoever to do with the freezing death of Neil Stonechild, then … who did?