Former journalist Arthur Kent awarded $250,000 in defamation lawsuit

An Alberta judge has awarded former TV journalist Arthur Kent $250,000 in legal costs in his successful defamation lawsuit against Canada's largest newspaper chain falling $1 million short of Kent's request.

The long and bitter litigation began in 2008 after a negative newspaper article was written about the one-time TV correspondent while he was running for political office. Kent won the lawsuit last year against Postmedia and one of its former columnists.

Kent, who got the nickname "Scud Stud" while reporting for NBC during the Persian Gulf war, has already been awarded $200,000 in damages for the piece written by Don Martin. He received an additional $61,000 in interest.

• Arthur Kent wants $1.2M fromPostmediafor defamation legal fees
• Arthur Kent collects $260KfromPostmediafollowing defamation lawsuit

Martin, who portrayed Kent as an out-of-control egomaniac who was a "dud" on the election trail, admitted during the court hearing that he would "write it differently today."

A paragraph in the column about Albertans referring to Kent as a "dud" was incorrect, Martin told the court.

Kent had asked Justice Jo'Anne Strekaf for $1.2 million in legal costs for his eight years in court while the Postmedia lawyer argued against awarding any costs to Kent.

Case not about monetary gain, Kent says

Strekaf was critical of the defendants for continually refusing to turn over two emails between Martin and the lawyer for Kent's campaign Kristine Robidoux. But she also rejected accusations from Kent that the defendants were guilty of wrongdoing, including fraudulent concealment of records and intentional destruction of records.

"None of these allegations were ever established," she wrote. "Both sides were responsible for some of the excessive pre-trial proceedings and delay."

Kent commented in a news release Wednesday.

"My lawyers and I are taking careful measure of several specific findings. As a result, full comment must wait for another time," Kent writes.

But he said the case was never about money.

"I did not file and pursue these actions for monetary gain," Kent said. "I did it to reveal the truth and set the record straight."