The lawyer for plaintiff Ted Hughes told the jury Vander Zalm's excuses for statements in book are 'flimsy.' (CBC)Former British Columbia premier Bill Vander Zalm should be found guilty of defamation for maliciously attacking the man whose inquiry led to his downfall, says a defence lawyer.

Irwin Nathanson told a B.C. Supreme Court jury Tuesday that Vander Zalm attempted to rehabilitate his image at the expense of his client's reputation in his 2008 book, 17 years after he was forced to step down.

Nathanson said former conflict of interest commissioner Ted Hughes has lived a life of integrity but Vander Zalm's book paints him as self-interested, biased and politically partisan.

'He can't stand behind the statements he's made.'—Ted Hughes' lawyer Irwin Nathanson on Vander Zalm

He said Vander Zalm's testimony that he wrote the book to set the record straight doesn't ring true because much of what he said isn't based on fact.

"I'm asking you, the jury, to do what Mr. Vander Zalm said he intended to do," he said. "You can set the record straight.

"You can make an award of damages which will make it clear that these statements were untrue and defamatory, such that Mr. Vander Zalm will not be able put any spin on what happened in this courtroom to explain the result of this trial."

Hughes, 84, a former judge and deputy attorney general, found in his 1991 inquiry that Vander Zalm breached conflict of interest guidelines by using his public office in the sale of his Fantasy Gardens theme park a year earlier.

Parable cited

In the preface of his book, "Bill Vander Zalm: For the People," the former Social Credit premier wrote a "parable," as he called it in court, about a woman who spread rumours about a villager named Joe, saying he's an alcoholic because he parks his truck in front of a pub every day.

Vander Zalm wrote that despite Joe's insistence that he works near the pub, even his friends believed the story — until he decided to park his vehicle in front of the woman's house all night.

"I wish I'd parked my car in front of Ted Hughes' house a long time ago," Vander Zalm wrote.

"To those who've lived behind the mask of deceit I think it's time to strip that away." "To those who wouldn't want the false facade that they built up to be torn down I say you'll be disappointed."

In court, Vander Zalm said his intention was to say that things aren't always as they appear and that he wasn't referring to Hughes but to the media and Faye Leung, who brokered the Fantasy Gardens deal and later betrayed him.

Vander Zalm also testified he wrote his autobiography to challenge the closed-door inquiry process he was subjected to by Hughes, who'd hired lawyers Joe Arvay and John Finlay, knowing they were philosophically opposed to him.

Nathanson said the process had nothing to do with any of the alleged defamatory statements Vander Zalm has made about Hughes.

"The idea of the process he complained of is the fox hole he's jumped into because he can't stand behind the statements he's made," Nathanson said.

"It's the only excuse available to him. It's a flimsy excuse."

'Free speech' invoked

Frank Potts, Vander Zalm's lawyer, suggested the lawsuit is frivolous and that the "judicial process has been cranked up" to waste court time.

"For a man in Ted Hughes' line of work to say, in effect, he's opposed to free speech for people who disagree with him is nothing short of shocking," he said.

Vander Zalm's lawyer said Hughes' lawsuit is 'frivolous.' (CBC)Potts said Hughes testified he was depressed after reading the preface of Vander Zalm's autobiography in 2009 but loaned it to his neighbours to read.

"If you honestly believe you've been defamed and there's a blotch and a slur on your reputation, you don't hand it out to your neighbours. What you do is you get your butt to your lawyer's office and you commence action."

Potts said Hughes started practising law in 1950 and isn't considering Vander Zalm's comments from a modern perspective when there's no defamatory sting to them and political debate is an accepted part of society.

"You look at those comments and if you look at them and yawn, they're not defamatory," he told the seven jurors.

Hughes was acting conflict of interest commissioner when he took on the Fantasy Gardens issue.

Vander Zalm wrote that then attorney general Brian Smith, who he called "conniving," recommended Hughes as the province's first five-year-term conflict of interest commissioner and that Smith was friendly with then-NDP leader Mike Harcourt.

Vander Zalm said Harcourt, "the hypocrite," was involved in a setup to have Hughes appointed to that job and that Hughes would be a hero to the New Democrats if he found the premier had breached the conflict of interest guidelines.

However, Harcourt testified last week that while Hughes was well regarded, the New Democrats didn't want him in that position because the party believed the conflict of interest guidelines didn't go far enough.

"This is basically a political dagger drawn through Brian Smith, through Mike Harcourt, and against Arvay and Finlay, and all leading to an attack on Ted Hughes," Nathanson said.

"Why an attack on Ted Hughes? Because he can't rehabilitate himself by simply saying, `I disagree with Ted Hughes' conclusions."'