Federal public servants sue Botler founders for defamation

Two senior federal public servants have filed a $4-million lawsuit against the co-founders of the tech company Botler in Ontario Superior Court. Cameron MacDonald, an assistant deputy minister at Health Canada, and Antonio Utano, a director general at the Canada Revenue Agency, are each seeking $2 million. They claim the founders, Ritika Dutt and Amir Morv, made defamatory statements about them. The lawsuit was filed in December and alleges that Dutt and Morv made false claims in a report to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). They supposedly suggested MacDonald and Utano acted improperly during contracting issues related to Botler’s software. The public servants argue these accusations have harmed their careers. The case is connected to a project involving Botler’s AI software, which MacDonald and Utano worked on during their time at the CBSA. The lawsuit describes various public comments and media interviews by the Botler founders following their report to the agency. Botler’s legal team plans to challenge the lawsuit. They argue that Dutt and Morv spoke out to address serious concerns, prompting reviews of federal contracting processes. Their lawyer is confident they will win the case. The conflict began in 2022 when Dutt and Morv raised concerns about their collaboration with the CBSA, specifically about contract approvals that seemed questionable. They allege they were advised to work with another contractor, GCStrategies, without proper agreements in place. It was later revealed that the funding for their project was granted through a contract with Dalian Enterprises, an Indigenous company, despite Botler not being Indigenous. Dalian and its partners, including GCStrategies, have faced scrutiny and were suspended from federal contracting. Meanwhile, the CBSA is conducting an internal investigation into the allegations made by Botler and has referred the matter to the RCMP. MacDonald and Utano’s attempts to stop the CBSA investigation were denied in court. They continue to seek damages for defamation, loss of reputation, and emotional distress while remaining in their federal positions.