McLarty faces $1.5M defamation suit



Former mayoral candidate Ian McLarty faces a $1.5 million defamation lawsuit regarding comments he made about the Capitol Theatre Annex.

Alfredo (Fred) Naclerio, owner of 1466166 Ontario Inc.,  which operates as Apollo General Contracting, filed the action July 26 in Superior Court in Chatham.

Naclerio seeks general damages of $1 million, special damages of $150,000 and punitive aggravated and exemplary damages of $350,000 under terms of the Libel and Slander Act.

The document alleges McLarty made defamatory statements July 10, 11, 12, 15 and 16 which individually and collectively diminish the reputation of Apollo.

Earlier this month, McLarty asked Chatham-Kent council to launch an investigation to answer questions he has surrounding the annex property and the municipality’s $1.3-million grant to St. Clair College that intends to offer courses at the site.

It states that “Mr. McLarty knew, ought to have known, or was reckless and willfully blind” to the fact that his statements were defamatory and untrue.

According to the action, Naclerio’s law firm, Siskinds of London, sent a letter asking McLarty to stop making defamatory statements. The notice was sent first by email and later delivered to him personally by a bailiff on July 17.

McLarty said he has filed a notice of intent to defend the action and has “zero fear” of the suit.

Calls to Naclerio’s business and Siskinds were not returned.


  1. What a way to kick of your mayoralty campaign. I didn't vote for him then, and I don't think I will vote for him next year.

  2. Looks like Ian "McLaughy" will need to dig deep into his pockets to check for his "Balls" and pocket book.Hopefully he has enough funds left over to buy his yard signs for his campaign! What a joke this guy is!

  3. Finally! Someone stands up to McLarty and shows him that shooting his mouth off doesn't pay. Actually, in this case it will. Maybe this will teach him that you can't win the vote, or public popularity, by creating conspiracy theories and telling lies. But then again, without that he has nothing left to offer.

  4. I look very forward to the outcome of this one and more surprised at the current lean here thus far to place blame on Mr. McLarty. The entire subject of the annex property grant to the college was complete and utter B.S. before this possible link even came to light. What the hell is C-K council thinking (those who voted for anyhow) allowing this to happen in the first place?
    Surplus money from a previous year… and they GIVE it away? Did everyone forget about our tax increase AGAIN in C-K already?
    I don't know either man personally, but I am only aware of one linked to a mess of bad decisions. Ya win some and ya lose some! I can't wait!

  5. Please go to the links in "Conflict claim gets its day in court" The entire court filing along with 25 exhibits is listed. You can also go to Commercial Copy center at 22 Grand and get a complete copy. Read it and then see if you still think I am lying.

  6. Thousands of us want to see the answers to these questions, and a contractor has his panties in a bunch over the demand for a review? Is this an action taken out of fear that he may have to defend himself? Seems like a threat to shut someone up more than anything else. In my opinion, it all seems quite curious. City council has made decisions on the backs of the tax payers and yet continues to say they can't afford to take care of infrastructure – let's give more away and see if all the problems go away!

  7. looks like your a joke just like Mclarty,I guess if Charlie Manson had followers so can a mongloids like Mcarty.
    God Help us ALL!!

  8. It's more the fact that Fred Naclerio was personally named in a way that could negatively impact his business profile in the community. I've seen it before where someone has been falsely accused and even though there is innocence it completely destroys their business.

  9. Actually, I have read the court filing and all supporting documentation. It appears to be more speculation than investigation. I looked into it further and found that your claims are unsubstantiated, and damaging to the people you name. If you had taken the time to look deeper, you too would have found that there is no 'cover-up'. But then again, that doesn't make news does it?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here