Judge orders arrest warrant for man in defamation case again Kelowna business

An arrest warrant has been issued for a man accused of defamation and harassment against multiple people involved with a Kelowna fruit farm, including Singh Sandher, Gurtaj Singh Sander and Prabtaj Singh Sandher.

The order was granted by Justice Gibb-Carsley at a New Westminister court on May 6, 2025.

Daryl Grant MacAskill published statements on a blog about individuals in the family run business, Sandher Fruit Packers Ltd., including that they have committed various crimes such as murder, human trafficking, illegal immigration, money laundering, drug trafficking and smuggling, bribing public officials and politicians and more.

MacAskill also made statements that Sandher’s were involved in terrorist group and gangs, like the Brothers Keepers and Sinaloa drug cartel.

Court documents say the allegations made by MacAskill included “rude, racist and homophobic language and content.”

“The plaintiffs argue that there is no basis for any of the statements and that their reputation and livelihoods have been adversely impacted by the baseless accusations,” the documents continue.

MacAskill did not attend hearings, despite being properly served and made aware of them.

In September 2024, a judge ordered that the content in question be removed from the blog and to not post any further similar information about the Sandhers. He was found to be in contempt of that injunction in November that year.

An arrest warrant was granted in order to compel MacAskill to attend a future contempt hearing.

At the same time, the judge also dealt with an application from the defendant asking for a dismissal of the defamation claim on the grounds that it “unduly limits expressions of public interest.”

“In short, the defendant argues that the claims he makes about the plaintiffs on the internet are in the public interest and so should not be muzzled by the plaintiffs’ defamation claim,” the court document says.

The judge said that by operation of the Protection of Public Participation Act (PPPA), a plaintiff can take no steps in its action until a defendant’s application is resolved.

“As such, the plaintiffs are held hostage if the defendant’s application is not heard.”

Since the defendant was not present, and has a pattern of not attending hearing, the judge opted to consider the application despite his absence. Ultimately, the application was dismissed due to a lack of merit.