TORONTO - Sun News Network host Ezra Levant took the stand Friday in his defence in a defamation lawsuit, repeating his contention in a series of blog posts that the lawyer who is suing him is a "liar."

Khurrum Awan, now a lawyer in Saskatchewan, was completing his articling and looking for work as a lawyer when he alleges the libels most damaging to his reputation were posted. He is seeking $100,000 in damages.

Levant's posts centred around Awan's testimony at a British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal case about a complaint over an article in Maclean's magazine from 2006, titled "The future belongs to Islam." Awan was a law student when the article was published and was one of a group of students who alleged the article was Islamophobic.

Some of Levant's blog posts are titled "Awan the liar," "Awan the liar part two" and so forth.

The human rights tribunal hearing took place in 2008, before the inception of Sun News, so the posts were on Levant's personal blog. Levant had been campaigning against the tribunals, which he refers to as kangaroo courts, and attended the hearing so he could blog about it, he told court Friday.

There was a "bombshell moment" for Levant during Awan's testimony, Levant said Friday.

The "bombshell" was about Awan's tribunal testimony on what the students proposed to Maclean's during a meeting about their concerns with the article. It was different than what Awan had said in media interviews leading up to the tribunal, Levant said.

The students wanted Maclean's to publish a rebuttal article and there are discrepancies over whether they pushed for an author of their choice or a "mutually agreeable" author. Before the hearing Awan had said they asked for a mutually agreeable author, Levant said. But Awan testified that while the students wanted to suggest that in the meeting, Maclean's shot them down before they could raise it.

Levant suggested in court Friday that the students' "mutually agreeable" contention made them come across as more reasonable and moderate than demanding an author of their choice.

Levant also referred to Awan on his blog as a "serial liar," which he defined as the "continuous repetition" of a lie.

"On the stand, under oath, Khurrum Awan admitted that what he had said again and again and again and again was not true," Levant said. "I just used the word liar because that's what it was and serial liar is when you lie again and again and again...Khurrum Awan the liar? Yes."

Levant went on, in his blogs, to refer to Awan as "money grubbing," because the students also asked Maclean's for money. Awan testified they had suggested Maclean's donate a sum of money to a human rights organization.

Levant's lawyer, Iain MacKinnon, has said the defence is primarily one of fair comment.

To establish fair comment, the statements must be on a matter of public interest, based on fact, recognizable as commentary and whether a reasonable person could honestly hold that opinion.

"There's no doubt Mr. Levant sometimes uses colourful language or sometimes a derisive tone," MacKinnon said earlier this week in his opening statement. "That is perfectly allowed under the defence of fair comment."

Levant was commenting on a matter of public interest, MacKinnon said, noting Awan never asked Levant for a correction.

Levant also accused Awan on his blog of being in a glaring conflict of interest. He believed that Awan was both assisting the prosecution and being a witness.

Though Awan was not the complainant to the human rights tribunal, he was involved with the Canadian Islamic Congress and previously served as its youth president, court heard. Awan had also been hired by the same law firm as the prosecuting lawyer, though Awan's lawyer said that was a coincidence.

Levant also testified that he saw Awan sit with the lawyers at the hearing and do tasks for them such as photocopying, generally done by junior lawyers.

Awan denied that he sat at the counsel table.

Levant is to be cross-examined on Monday and closing arguments are expected to be delivered Tuesday.

Also on HuffPost:

Loading Slideshow...
  • Women Sue For Being Called 'Hot', Pictured With 'Douchebags'

    Last October, Yvette Gorzelany, Joanna Obiedzinski, and Paulina Pakos attempted to sue over their appearance in the book "Hot Chicks with Douchebags." The ladies filed a defamation suit only to have it thrown out by a New Jersey judge in February who ruled it as a work of satire (duh). The judge proved the point further by asking whether a reasonable person could "believe that Jean-Paul Sartre stated 'man is condemned to be douchey because once thrown into the world he is responsible for every douchey thing that he does.'" Yeah, we're with the judge on that one. (<a href="">source</a>)

  • Beer Commercial Promises Women, Doesn't Deliver

    It would take a lot of beer to believe this guy's story. In 1991 Richard Overton actually tried to sue Anheuser-Busch for $10,000 because upon drinking copious amounts of Bud Light, beautiful women didn't come to life in a tropical setting, as shown in the commercials. Guess what Richard? Frogs and lizards can't <em>really</em> talk, either. (<a href="">source</a>)

  • Sick Of Being A Celebrity Doppelganger? Sue!

    Oregon man Allen Heckard had a unique problem: people constantly told him he looked like basketball star Michael Jordan. Except Heckard saw it a bit differently, Michael Jordan looked like <em>him</em>. Naturally, he decided to sue Jordan and Nike for $832 million for his "emotional pain and suffering." But we thought everyone wanted to "be like Mike"?! (<a href="">source</a>)

  • Lindsay Lohan Sues For Depiction Of "Milkaholic" Baby

    This year, Lindsay Lohan sought $100 million from E-Trade for use of the name "Lindsay" in reference to a female baby in their Super Bowl ad. Her people claimed the public knows her by the singular name, like Oprah or Madonna, and that referring to the baby as a "milk-aholic" directly references her life. We think she should be FINED $100 million just for being so vain. (<a href="">source</a>)

  • Broke? In Prison? Sue Yourself!

    In 1995, Robert Lee Brock attempted to sue himself for $5 million claiming he violated his own civil rights by getting intoxicated and committing crimes. He was serving a 23 year prison sentence at the time and thought the state would have to pay because he was incarcerated. Not hard to believe, the case was thrown out. (<a href="">source</a>)

  • Haunted House Too Scary? Here's $15,000!

    Usually haunted houses get points for being scary, but in the 2000 case of Cleanthi Peters, scariness got Universal Studios a $15,000 lawsuit. Peters claimed to have suffered "extreme fear, mental anguish, and emotional distress" after visiting the Halloween Horror Nights haunted house. Maybe she could use some of that money to learn what "haunted house" means. (<a href="">source</a>)

  • $100,000 For A Leg Cramp?

    We've all wanted to sue an airline for awful food, uncomfortable seats, or longer-than-life wait times, but this couple actually did it. Jerome and Judith O'Callaghan sued American Airlines for $100,000 in 2004 because the leg room was smaller than they expected. (<a href="">source</a>)

  • Kidney "Donation" Ends In $1.5 M Lawsuit

    When a Long Island doctor (yes, DOCTOR) was served with divorce papers by his cheating wife, he naturally decided to sue her for the return of a gift he gave her 8 years prior: his kidney. Yes, a medical professional put a price of $1.5 million on the body part, to be paid by his ex. At least he didn't want it back! (<a href="">source</a>)

  • Victoria's REAL Secret: Defective Merchandise?

    52-year-old L.A. traffic cop Macrida Patterson sued Victoria's Secret after a thong she purchased there broke. The underwear had a rhinestone heart on the side that broke, flew into Macrida's eye and hurt her. We're not sure if Victoria's Secret made a defective thong, or whether Macrida just needs to buy bigger underwear. (<a href="">source</a>)

  • Women Using Urinals Causes "Emotional Distress"

    In 1995, Robert Glaser entered at unisex bathroom at a Billy Joel/Elton John concert and found not one, but multiple women using urinals in lieu of the toilets. Glaser sued the venue for $5.4 million for his "emotional distress" and lost. At least he got a good story out of it. (<a href="">source</a>)

  • This Lawsuit Is What's "Unreasonable"

    (<a href="">image</a>) Zeynep Inanli is suing Starbucks for serving her tea that was "unreasonably hot." She claims the tea gave her second-degree burns and "great physical pain and mental anguish." Yeah, we're sure that's worth millions of dollars, right? (<a href="">source</a>)

  • Man Sues For Damages To Car After RUNNING OVER Boy

    When Tomas Delgado was driving over the speed limit and hit and killed child on a bike, a loophole got him out of any trouble (the boy was riding at night without safety gear or reflectors). You'd think getting away with murder would be enough, but Delgado decided to sue the family of the boy for damages to his Audi. It's a good thing he later dropped the lawsuit, or we would have lost ALL faith in humanity. (<a href="">source</a>)

  • Not Dressed For The Weather? There's A Lawsuit For That

    In 1996 an Israeli woman sued a TV station for predicting fair weather, prompting her to dress lightly and be rained upon later that day. She asked for $1000 for her resulting sickness which caused her to miss work. We don't know what's more strange: the fact that she actually sued over an act of nature, or the fact that she won. (<a href="">source</a>).

  • Man Accuses Magicians Of Using His Powers

    Christopher Roller is just a regular Minnesota resident. Well, except that he thinks he's a god. Roller got upset after seeing David Copperfield and David Blaine do their magic tricks, and sued both magicians for use of his "godly powers." So not only does this man think he's holy, but that his holy duty is to perform card tricks and faux levitation? Awesome. (<a href="">source</a>)

  • Red Hot Lawsuit Over 'Californication'

    In 2007, The Red Hot Chili Peppers filed a lawsuit against Showtime over use of the name "Californication" for their series starring David Duchovny. Sure, it was the name of the band's 1999 album and hit song, but unless the show is about rocking out in underwear or doing drugs under a bridge, we don't see the problem. (<a href="">source</a>)

  • A $930 Plate Of Cookies

    In the summer of 2005, two teen girls in Colorado decided to bake some cookies and share them with their neighbors. Sounds innocent enough, but one neighbor, Wanita Renea Young, was so shocked at the appearance of two 15-year-old girls on her doorstep at 10:30 p.m. that she had an anxiety attack and sued for medical damages. She won $930 for her trip to the emergency room but was denied money for "pain and suffering." You know what really helps with pain and suffering? Cookies! (<a href="">source</a>)