Part of the Fournier's counterclaim against Warman was that he is using the 'maximum disruption' technique (which he has promoted) against them.
Warman's defense to this was that he does not believe the Fourniers themselves are neo-nazis or nazis of any kind and that he is convinced that their site does not contain any neo-nazi or holocaust-denying material. Warman himself insisted that this be made part of the court record.
His defense was that since he only uses 'maximum disruption' against people he believes are neo-nazis, and he does not believe that either the Fourniers or their forum is neo-nazi, he could not possibly be using the 'maximum disruption' thingy on them.
Ms. Fournier pointed out that this line of defense by Mr. Warman is a no-starter: it would be like punching a brunette in the head, then offering the defense that he could not have punched the brunette because he has a strict policy of punching only blondes in the head...
It got a chuckle in the courtroom - including from Warman's own lawyer.