- 1 -

Court File No. CV-05-1402-00

ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

BIE PRODUCTS O/B

2037839 ONTARIO LTD.

Plaintiff

and -

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA ON BEHALF OF HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA and

JIM DASKALOPOULOS and

CANWEST GLOBAL COMMUNICAITONS CORP. and

THE CANADIAN PRESS and

TORSTAR CORPORATION and

CTV INC. and

CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION and

CNW GROUP LTD. and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO ON BEHALF OF HER MAJEST THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO and

GOOGLE CANADA CORPORATION and

YAHOO! CANADA CO. and

BRUNSWICK NEWS INC. and

MEDIRESOURCE INC. and

BELL SYMPATICO and

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PHARMACY REGULATORY AUTHORITIES and

THE ALBERTA COLLEGE OF PHARMACISTS and

ROGERS PUBLISHING LIMITED and

WEBBY INC. and

METROLAND PRINTING, PUBLISHING & DISTRIBUTING LTD. and

FOUNDATION QUEBECOISE DU CANCER

DR. TERRY POLEVOY, MD and

HEALTHWATCHER.NET INC.

Defendants

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

TO THE PLAINTIFF

  1. The Defendants, DR. TERRY POLEVOY, MD and HEALTHWATCHER.NET INC. deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 25, 26, 100, 108, of the statement of claim.
  2. The Defendants, DR. TERRY POLEVOY, MD and HEALTHWATCHER.NET INC. The defendants have no knowledge in respect of the allegations contained in paragraph 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 109, 110, 111, of the statement of claim.

Background

  1. The Defendants expressly deny the allegations in paragraph 25 and 26 of the statement of claim. In fact, DR. POLEVOY does not believe that his web site exists to discredit safe and effective non-allopathic products, services, and practicum in order to maintain a medical monopoly controlled by Allopathic medical investment interests. The Plaintiff has no reason to hold these beliefs or make these allegations. They are totally and completely baseless.
  2. Plaintiff fails to define what he means by “non-allopathic”, “allopathic”, “practicum”, or “Allopathic medical investment interest”.
  3. The Defendants expressly deny the allegations in paragraph 25 (a) and 26 (a). The Plaintiff has provided no evidence on which to base any of those claims. The Plaintiff makes wild and unsupported allegations that Jim Daskalopoulos was acting outside of his oath of office, the Public Service guidelines of conduct, the Rule of Law governing our country, the departmental empowering legislation, the Constitution and federal jurisdiction. This charge that I “knew or ought to have known” is preposterous and irrational.
  4. The Defendants expressly deny the allegations in paragraph 25 (b) and 26 (b). The Plaintiff has provided no evidence on which to base any of those claims. The Plaintiff makes wild and unsupported allegations that Jim Daskalopoulos, an employee of the Federal government, and his unnamed colleagues were in breach of their duties and trust in a premeditated and malicious manner. This charge that I knew or ought to have known” is preposterous and irrational.
  5. The Defendants expressly deny the allegations in paragraph 25 (c) and 26 (c). The Plaintiff has provided no evidence on which to base any of those claims. The Plaintiff implies that the Defendant has not made “Any effort at a web-based search” that “would have provided ample research for the preparation of a balanced and fair publication”. This charge is preposterous and irrational.
  6. The Defendants expressly deny the allegations in paragraph 25 (d) and 26 (d). The Plaintiff has provided no evidence on which to base any of those claims. The Plaintiff or its legal agent (Trueman Tuck) charges that the Defendants have not made any efforts to publish a fair and proper publication providing the Plaintiff’s side of these issues. This charge is preposterous and irrational. Trueman Tuck runs numerous web sites about natural health and anti-government points of view and there is in actuality no fair or proper publication on his own web sites. There is no requirement in a country with a free press and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that requires anyone to present both sides of any issues.
  7. The Defendants expressly deny the allegations in paragraph 25 (d) and 26 (d) of the statement of claim. In fact, DR. POLEVOY does not believe that his web sites as listed by the Plaintiff’s agent Trueman Tuck are used for “improper purposes”. The fact that he feels that DR. POLEVOY is the “directing mind and will and alter ego of is his opinion. His statement that “All actions taken by Polevoy were undertaken by him in his own personal capacity”, is meaningless.
  8. The Defendants expressly deny the allegations in paragraph 100 of the statement of claim. The statements made by Dr. Terry Polevoy are not false, and are not defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning to the Plaintiff. The posts and e-mails sent on June 8, and June 30, 2005 I do not believe that they contained errors of fact in the matter. The facts are clear that the agent, Trueman Tuck, organized many of the presenters who appeared before the Standing Committee on Health who had either false credentials or credentials that were meaningless.
  9. The Defendants expressly deny the allegations in paragraph 108 of the statement of claim. The details about the posts were not detailed by the Plaintiff’s agent, Trueman Tuck. The truth in the matter is that Mr. Tuck has spread what the average person might consider libellous and defamatory posts about me on his own web site for years. For Mr. Tuck to ignore those facts are egregious.
  10. Summary of the Statement of Defence
  11. The Plaintiff, through their agent Trueman Tuck of Tuck’s Professional Services Canada, O/B 1233330 Ontario Inc., A Non-Lawyer, Non-Barrister, Non-Solicitor Legal Consulting Firm has failed to establish that the Defendants have injured anyone.
  12. Given the numerous personal and public attacks by Trueman Tuck against the Defendants over the years and the fact that indeed the products promoted, imported, sold, delivered or marketed by the Plaintiff were falsely advertised for years, and then were eventually deemed to be potentially harmful by the government in Canada speaks for itself.
  13. Numerous other companies around the world have been charged successfully by government agencies such as the FTC in the United States for marketing bogus and deceptive HGH products. BIE Health Products is certainly not alone in this.
  14. The Defendants ask that all charges be dismissed and that the Plaintiff and their agent be asked to apologize publicly and to pay for all court costs accrued by the Defendants in this matter before the Court.
  15. Issued: September 26, 2005 ______per [Terry Polevoy]

September 26,2005 / Terry Polevoy, MD
938 King Street West
Kitchener, ON N2G 1G4
BIE HEALTH PRODUCTS O/B
2037839 ONTARIO LTD.
Plaintiff / and / DR TERRY POLEVOY, MD
HEALTHWATCHER.NET, INC.
Defendant / Court File No: CV-05-1402-00
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Proceeding commenced at Belleville, Ontario
STATEMENT OF DEFENCE
Terry Polevoy, MD
938 King Street West
Kitchener, ON N2G 1G4
Phone: 519-725-2263
Fax: 519-725-4953