Free Press: Lawsuit Continues the Fight Over What Really Happened After Feb. 17 Council Meeting
(Wingham, North Huron, Ontario) — North Huron Deputy Reeve Kevin Falconer has taken the February 17 confrontation outside a North Huron council meeting into civil court, seeking millions of dollars in damages from Stephen “Buck” Hill and George Brent Mills — two men who maintain that Falconer was the aggressor that evening.
The lawsuit is proceeding in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice as Falconer v. Hill et al., Court File No. CV-26-00001464-0000.
Hill has now formally answered the lawsuit with a Statement of Defence and a $2-million counterclaim against Falconer in the same court proceeding.
The allegations in both Falconer’s lawsuit and Hill’s counterclaim remain to be proven in court.
Falconer’s lawsuit alleges that Mills assaulted him and that Hill encouraged, incited or contributed to the confrontation. Hill categorically denies those allegations.
Hill’s Defence says Hill never struck Falconer and had no physical contact with him during the incident.
Instead, Hill alleges Falconer approached members of the public and media after the council meeting and voluntarily engaged with them. The gathering had been in a jubilant mood following council’s rescission of its controversial recording prohibition.
According to Hill’s Defence, Free Press owner/reporter Brad Carther asked Falconer a question about whether public and media questions would again be permitted at council meetings.
Falconer allegedly responded with a vulgar sexual remark.
Hill says that when he questioned Falconer about that comment, Falconer turned and advanced toward him. Hill says he backed away and feared Falconer was going to make physical contact with him.
George Brent Mills then stepped between the two men.
Mills has maintained that he was attempting to prevent an escalation and that Falconer grabbed him in the groin area, causing Mills to respond defensively.
Mills was subsequently charged with assault causing bodily harm. That charge was later withdrawn. The withdrawal was not a civil-court finding that Mills acted in self-defence, but Mills has consistently maintained that his actions were defensive.
Video is central to the competing accounts.
Footage previously released publicly shows the confrontation and Falconer going to the ground. Additional footage shows Falconer back on his feet and moving again before apparently losing his footing and falling heavily onto the pavement.
Hill alleges that during that later fall neither Hill nor Mills was applying force to Falconer.
That sequence could become significant as Falconer seeks damages for injuries he attributes to the February 17 incident. The video itself cannot establish which event caused any particular medical injury.
Hill Countersues for $2 Million
Court File No. CV-26-00001464-0000
Hill’s counterclaim turns Falconer’s allegations around.
Hill alleges that Falconer was the aggressor, that Falconer’s advancement caused him to reasonably fear imminent unwanted physical contact, and that Falconer’s conduct amounted to civil assault.
Hill seeks $750,000 in general damages, $750,000 in aggravated damages and $500,000 in punitive damages, together with special damages, interest and costs.
Hill further alleges that Falconer’s conduct was malicious, oppressive and high-handed and was calculated to intimidate, humiliate and discourage Hill and others from questioning or criticizing Falconer concerning his public role.
Those are Hill’s allegations and have not yet been determined by a court.
Free Press: Further Victimization Through Litigation
The Free Press’s position is straightforward: we view Falconer’s lawsuit as further victimization of the very people who say they were the victims of his conduct that night.
That is our opinion. The court will determine the legal and factual issues.
Hill says he never touched Falconer.
Mills says he intervened to prevent Falconer from reaching Hill and acted defensively after Falconer allegedly grabbed him in the groin.
The criminal assault-causing-bodily-harm charge against Mills was withdrawn.
And video exists that allows the public — and eventually the court — to examine important portions of the confrontation rather than relying exclusively on anybody’s description of it.
Falconer is entitled to advance his allegations in court.
Hill is equally entitled to deny them, defend himself and pursue his own counterclaim.
Now the competing versions will face something more demanding than a press release, political statement or social-media post:
evidence.
The Free Press will continue publishing the court documents and video evidence necessary for the public to follow the case and reach its own conclusions.
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Falconer v. Hill et al.
Court File No. CV-26-00001464-0000
None of the allegations contained in Falconer’s claim or Hill’s counterclaim have yet been adjudicated on their merits.