What Is Dennis King Hiding?

PREAMBLE

There are moments in a democracy when the smallest document—sometimes just a few blanked-out lines on a page —tells a much bigger story.

What’s unfolding right now in the PEI Supreme Court with the lawsuit against former Premier Dennis King et. al., IS one of those moments.

In the coming weeks, a Motion will be heard that strikes at the heart of government transparency, accountability, and truthfulness at the very top of our provincial leadership: the Premier.

At the centre of that Motion is Dennis King, and a set of redacted Facebook Messenger messages between him and political “insider ” Jeffery Warren Reynolds,” aka the whistleblower from whom King received these messages.

If you care about honest government, you should be watching this matter very closely to see how the Supreme Court Justice handling this Motion will rule, and what that ruling will say.

I’ll provide just enough information in this article for you to understand what the ‘ruling’ concerns, and why it is so important for the restoration of some degree of honest democracy in PEI.

The Core Problem

[The Premier Says One Thing – The Records Say Something Else]

Under oath, during his October 27, 2025 cross-examination via Internet from Ireland, Premier King stated clearly—and more than once—that after 2019, he never communicated with Jeffery Warren Reynolds on Facebook Messenger, or any other social media platform.

Not once.

Not ever.

That was his sworn testimony.

But that story unfortunately doesn’t match the documents.

A FOIPP release from the Premier’s own office contains Facebook Messenger records showing direct communications between King and Reynolds in 2021—two years after the time that King swore all communication had stopped.

Those messages are unfortunately completely redacted, but the “timestamps” and “participants” aren’t redacted, and they provide evidence that proves that the Premier wasn’t truthful in his testimony under oath.

King was no innocent-bystander ‘witness’ in his Discovery answers – nor in his refusal to answer some questions at all.

Both men – King and Reynolds – are DEFENDENTS in a major lawsuit involving allegations of PEI provincial government interference, deleted records, and misconduct surrounding plans for an “off-the-books” online gaming scheme allegedly involving Ambassador King.

Now Islanders are left wondering why King would deny that such messages even exist when his own office has already provided copies of proof they do in a FOI request, albeit a “completely redacted” FOI request, hiding what the public—and the Supreme Court —has yet to be allowed to see? 

I circled the number in red for the particular clause in the FOIP Act – 15(1) indicating the statutory authority used as the legal basis for  withholding all this information. 

This section reads as follows:

One would think that such a total denial of information would only happen if lives were on the line,  or there was some matter of national security…not because it might be “harmful” personally to Premier King!!

Why This Motion Matters to Every Islander

The Motion filed in the PEI Supreme Court isn’t just dealing with some legal housekeeping matter. It’s about establishing whether the Premier of Prince Edward Island told the truth on the record after swearing that he would do so, in a matter of considerable importance to all Islanders; or whether his testimony is contradicted by legitimate. documentary, uncontestable evidence coming from his own office files.

The Plaintiffs are asking the PEI Supreme Court for two basic things in this Motion:

1. An order compelling King to answer questions that he refused to answer, after admitting he knew of “government wrongdoing.”
2. An order requiring the unredacted messages between King and Reynolds to be produced, because the redactions are preventing the truth from coming out.

These aren’t fishing expeditions being launched by the Plaintiffs, as is noted in the “grounds” that I’ve included below, taken directly from the Motion.

The Plantiffs are seeking only the most fundamental requirements for transparency in litigation, especially with a case that’s already exposed years of government record destruction; the withholding of materially-relevant documents; and countless false claims concerning documents, many made under oath.  

Islanders have already witnessed far too many FOIPP requests seeking egaming records coming back with a short letter and a “no records found” outcome – a claim that then turns out to be completely false, as records that should have been provided are subsequently identified.

There have also been far too many materially-relevant  e-mails made to disappear; and when the documents can’t be falsely claimed to be “non-existent” to hide them from the public and from the officisl court record, then redactions are employed to completely hide the truth.

This Motion is a chance to finally pull back the curtain.

The Redactions Are the Real Story

What’s the truth??

King said under oath, “I never messaged him,” while FOIPP records say, “Yes, you did!” 

That’s how it appears to me on the face of it, but we need a JUDGE’s ruling to make it official.

Without that, there will simply be no consequences for wrongdoing, no positive outcomes for Islanders, and no restoration of integrity in this matter with our government on a go-forward basis.

This isn’t about partisan politics or whether you voted blue, red, or green.

This is about whether the former Premier of Prince Edward Island – Canada’s acting Ambassador to Ireland – will be held to the same standard as every Island teacher, farmer, nurse, or fisherman who gives sworn testimony in a court of law.

If the average Islander lied under oath and got caught, there would be consequences.

Why should it be any different for an Islander who used to be Premier?

But let’s not lose focus: the really important question is about the ‘content’ of those messages upon which the lawsuit hangs:

“What was on those blank pages in the messages sent to Premier King he swore he never received ?”

If the messages were harmless—just scheduling a coffee, sharing a news article, checking in, etc., then why redact them completely as “personal,” claiming it would be harmful for others to know about them?

If you’re the person being “protected” with complete redactions in documents, but the redactions at least proves they exist, then why would you then deny that they exist under oath? 

Is it possible King was never made aware of that FOI request?

Or perhaps, that his Stewart McKelvey lawyer preparing him for Discovery examination also let that important tidbit slip through the cracks? 

You only hide what hurts you in these kinds of situations, that’s been my experience. 

And that’s fair game for lots of “personal” things we’d rather not have others know about, things they have no need to know about.

However, if what “hurts you personally” just so happens to be the consequences of disclosing government-documented information about criminal behaviour and/or wrongdoing well serving as a Premier of a province of Canada, then that provision of the FOI Act should NOT be deemed  ‘grounds” for keeping such information away from Islanders – and the Supreme Court – given that both have the legal and moral rights to obtain it.

When two defendants in the same lawsuit are communicating privately during the key period of alleged misconduct, the public has every right to demand answers about what that communication is – it goes directly to the heart of this entire lawsuit.

PEI has spent far too long in the shadows of secrecy.

The e-gaming scandal happened in the dark.

The PNP scandal happened in secret.

The record deletions with Brad Mix, Pam Gorveat, Robert Ghiz, Chris LeClair, and many, many others happened in the dark.

The “no records found” culture now completely permeating government within the FOI and Information Commissioner office also crept upon us secretly in the dark.

Now we have a chance to let some light in on this Motion.

Will the judge open the blinds?

SUMMARY

Whether you support the Premier in this matter or not, every Islander should agree on this at least: the truth should not be hidden.

Especially not by the Premier’s office.

And certainly not in a court of law when an action has been launched seeking that very truth!

If the Premier’s testimony doesn’t match the evidence, Islanders deserve to know why not.

If the redacted messages contain information about deleted government records or interference in litigation, that truth belongs to the public as well, not buried by those who find it convenient to ignore the laws of the land, and the rights of people, blocking truth from public view.

The court now has the opportunity to decide whether accountability or concealment will win.