Morton v. Union of BC Indian Chiefs

2026 BCSC 788 Morton v. Union of BC Indian Chiefs IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Morton v. Union of BC Indian Chiefs, 2026 BCSC 788 Date: 20260430 Docket: 19462 Registry: Quesnel Between: Pat Morton Plaintiff And Union of BC Indian Chiefs Defendant Before: The Honourable Justice Ahmad Reasons for Judgment The Plaintiff, appearing in person: P. Morton Counsel for Defendant: A.L. Doolittle N.E. John Place and Date of Hearing: Quesnel, B.C. November 27, 2025, and January 16, 2026 Place and Date of Judgment: Quesnel, B.C. April 30, 2026 Table of Contents I. Introduction.. 3 II. Summary of evidence and facts 5 III. Legal framework.. 12 III. Discussion and analysis. 13 A. Does the proceeding arise from an "expression" that relates to a "matter of public interest" (s. 4(1))?. 13 B. Merits-based hurdle (s. 4(2)(a)) 15 1. Are there grounds to believe the claim has substantial merit?. 15 2. Are there grounds to believe that the defendant has no valid defence?. 15 a. Defence of justification. 16 b. Defence of fair comment 18 c. Defence of qualified privilege. 22 3. Conclusion. 25 C. Public weighing exercise (s. 4(2)(b)) 26 1. Evidence of harm and causation. 26 2. Public interest in protecting UBCIC's expression. 30 3. Conclusion. 31 IV. Conclusion and costs. 32 I. Introduction [1] On April 2, 2024, the Union of BC Indian Chiefs ("UBCIC") sent a letter to Quesnel's mayor and council protesting the fact that one of the contributors of the book, Grave Error: How The Media Misled Us (and the Truth about Residential Schools)[1] was scheduled to speak at a city council meeting later that day. In the letter, the UBCIC also objected to the promotion of the book referencing, in particular, the purchase and distribution of the book by Pat Morton, who is the mayor's wife. Regarding Ms. Morton, it wrote: We are aware that Mayor Paull's wife, Pat Morton, bought cases of the book and handed them out to her clients from her son's tax office (Q-Tax) in Quesnel, in blatant disregard for the impact this would have on residential school survivors and their families. [2] Ms. Morton commenced this action against the UBCIC, alleging that statement (the "Impugned Statement") is defamatory and has caused her harm, in the form of reputational harm, emotional distress, and business losses. [3] On this application, the UBCIC seeks to have Ms. Morton's claim dismissed. [4] The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized defamation suits as a legitimate "way to vindicate an individual's personal or professional reputation in the face of attack". On the other hand, such suits can also have the undesirable effect of suppressing the open debate that is the cornerstone of a free and democratic society.[2] [5] Those competing values--the preservation of open debate and the freedom of expression, on one hand, and the protection of reputation, on the other --are at the heart of this case. [6] In order to balance those competing values, British Columbia has enacted the Protection of Public Participation Act, S.B.C. 2019, c. 3 [PPPA] to target actions that disproportionately suppress free expression on matters of public interest. A "core feature" of the PPPA is the "recognition that even claims with substantial merit will be dismissed where the public interest in preserving free debate outweighs the harm to the plaintiff that the litigation purports to address".[3] [7] Relying on s. 4 of the PPPA, the UBCIC argues that there is no merit to Ms. Morton's defamation claim and, specifically, that there are no grounds to believe that it does not have any valid defences. It raises three: the defences of justification (substantial truth), fair comment, and qualified privilege. [8] In any event, and regardless of merit, the UBCIC argues that given the minimal harm incurred by Ms. Morton, if any, the defamation claim disproportionately suppresses its free expression on this matter on which there is a significant public interest and debate, not only in Quesnel, but across British Columbia and Canada. [9] To be clear, this application is not about Ms. Morton's right to distribute the book, nor is it about her right to express her views about the book's content. Neither is at issue. At its core, this application is about whether the public interest in protecting the UBCIC's right to publicly express its criticism of Ms. Morton for her distribution of the book outweighs any harm Ms. Morton may have incurred as a result of the UBCIC's letter to Quesnel's mayor and council. [10] For the reasons that follow, I find that there are grounds to believe that the UBCIC has valid defences to the defamation claim. In any event, I find that this is a case in which the public interest in preserving free debate and the UBCIC's right to express its views as it did outweighs the harm, if any, that Ms. Morton may have incurred. [11] Pursuant to s. 4(2) of the PPPA, Ms. Morton's defamation claim against the UBCIC must be dismissed. II. Summary of evidence and facts [12] While I have considered all the evidence before me, in these reasons, I do not purport to canvass all the details of the evidence that was advanced, except as they specifically relate to an issue in dispute. A summary of the key points of the evidence, drawn in part from the applicant's written summary of facts, which I found to be fair and accurate, is set out below. The parties [13] Ms. Morton is an income tax specialist or tax preparer employed by QTAX Quality Tax Services ("QTax"), a Quesnel business owned and operated by her son, Kevin Christieson. As noted, she is also the spouse of Quesnel's mayor, Ron Paull. [14] The UBCIC is a representative organization made up of member First Nations in British Columbia. It engages in advocacy, policy development, research, and public education to promote and support efforts to strengthen Indigenous political, social, economic, and spiritual institutions and rights. Among other issues, it has long been vocal in its support of residential school survivors and in challenging residential school denialism, including what it views as the dissemination of misinformation harmful to residential school survivors and their families, the goals of reconciliation, and the specific calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Ms. Morton's purchase and distribution of the book [15] On January 17, 2024, Ms. Morton purchased one copy of the book from Amazon. She subsequently purchased five more copies at the end of January 2024, five more copies in a single order on February 5, 2024, and two copies on March 22, 2024, for a total of 13 books. [16] Ms. Morton deposes that "on one occasion only", she provided a copy of the book to a client through the QTax office, who she asked to read the book and provide an opinion. In a separate defamation action commenced against Quesnel city councillor, Laurey-Anne Roodenburg, Ms. Morton identifies that client as Connie Goulet. [17] In addition, Ms. Morton gave one book (inscribed with the notation "CHILDREN NEED TO BE TAUGHT THE TRUTH!") to the school district for their library, offered one to the local MLA (who returned it unread), and gave the remaining books to "close friends and family". March 19, 2024 council meeting [18] The Lhtako Dene First Nation is a member of the UBCIC and is located in the Quesnel area. [19] On March 19, 2024, Quesnel City Council held a meeting ("March 19 Meeting") in which it discussed correspondence received from the Lhtako Dene Nation dated March 19, 2024 ("Lhtako Dene Nation Letter"). In its letter, the Lhtako Dene Nation advised the mayor and council that "a person related to a member of the City's elected [council] has been distributing [the book]". It described the book as making "many harsh comments", including a comment "implying that cultural genocide did not occur, and basically questioning the existence of Indian Residential Schools". [20] Mayor Paull confirmed that that it was his wife (Ms. Morton) who had the book. When asked "do you agree with what your wife has been doing", Mayor Paull responded "No". [21] A motion to denounce the book was passed unanimously by City Council. Post-March 19 Meeting events [22] Following the March 19 Meeting, several Facebook posts generated a significant amount of online discussion about the book and Ms. Morton's alleged distribution of it. Those posts included: a) On March 19, 2024, Quesnel City Councillor Scott Elliot posted the Lhtako Dene Nation Letter on Facebook, writing that he was "extremely disappointed to hear that these books have been handed out by the Mayor's wife". This post generated 256 comments and was shared 142 times, generating further comments and responses. b) On March 20, 2024, a user posted on the Facebook group, "Quesnel Community News and Events", "[l]ooking for a diverse list of local options for income tax services". c) On March 22, 2024, Mr. Christieson published a post from the Facebook profile for QTax addressing "the recent rumors circulating online and throughout the community regarding" the business. This post alone generated 282 comments and was shared 65 times, some of which generated further comments and responses. d) Between March 20 and March 26, 2024, Ms. Morton made and shared several posts and memes on her Facebook page. While none expressly refer to the book, several reference the topic of "truth" including: "Most people don't really want the truth. They just want constant reassurance that what they believe is the truth." "It's the truth I'm after, and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance." "When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear." e) On March 27, 2024, one of the contributors to the book, Frances Widdowson, announced through a Facebook post that she would be interviewing Ms. Morton on her YouTube channel. The following day, Ms. Widdowson posted that Ms. Morton would not be doing the interview with her. f) On March 29, 2024, Councillor Elliot shared a Facebook post supporting a rally that had been organized for April 2, 2024. The rally was billed as "Support for Truth & Reconciliation" and called for supporters to gather at the Nazko First Nation office and walk to City Hall to attend the City Council meeting planned for that evening. [23] While Ms. Morton was not without support in the comments of these posts, many of the comments were openly critical of her, her distribution of the book, and of Mr. Paull's position as mayor. The comments in response to Councillor Elliot's March 19, 2024, Facebook post include, for example: "The Mayor doesn't know his wife is handing these out? Disgusting!!!!" "How utterly disgraceful!" "I'm outraged. This is utterly despicable and must be so incredibly disappointing and heart wrenching to our First Nations. As a member of the community of Quesnel, I feel both horrified and embarrassed that this is propaganda spewed by the Mayor's wife. And let's not kid each other, he knows." " I am totally disgusted and disappointed. Sadly, I am not surprised by Pat Morton's ridiculous and despicable comments and behaviour anymore [t]here should be a public apology made by Ron Paul [sic] and Pat Morton to the Indigenous people (with no allowance for excuses, personal opinions or lame reasons trying to justify her behaviour / decision to hand out this book) and some serious consideration for the Mayor to resign from his position quietly and immediately THIS type of behavior does not and should NEVER be tolerated at any level of association or representation of the City of Quesnel." "Vile and repulsive and as citizens we can not allow THIS to be out representation. Paul [sic] NEEDS to step down" [24] The online comments regarding Ms. Morton's association with QTax were more divided. Many commenters supported QTax and the services it provided. However, some commentors said that, given Ms. Morton's conduct, they would no longer use its services; some even called for a boycott of the business. [25] On March 25, 2024, Ms. Morton wrote a letter to the Chief of the Lhtako Dene Nation, copied to the City of Quesnel and various news outlets, in which she stated: "I was dismayed to hear of your letter to the Mayor and Council about my actions". She confirmed that she had shared the book "with Connie Goulet and sent it to the school board administrator". [26] On March 28, 2024, Councillor Elliot published a Facebook post with Ms. Morton's March 25 letter to the Lhtako Dene Nation. This post generated 216 comments and was shared 43 times. Some of the shared posts also generated further comments regarding Ms. Morton. Again, while some comments supported Ms. Morton, many comments were critical of her or her conduct in connection with the book. [27] On March 23, 2024, a petition was created on Change.org calling for Mr. Paull to step down as mayor of Quesnel, citing that "Pat Morton, wife of Ron Paull (the Mayor of Quesnel), has been circulating harmful media aimed at spreading misinformation about the experience of Indigenous children in Residential Schools". [28] Between March 20 and 25, 2024, local and national media published several news articles regarding the controversy surrounding Ms. Morton's distribution of the book. Response of other institutions [29] Between March 20 and 22, 2024, several institutions also issued statements or letters in support of the Lhtako Dene Nation Letter. [30] On March 22, 2024, the BC Assembly of First Nations issued a news release congratulating the Lhtako Dene Nation and the City of Quesnel, stating "when it came to light that the wife of Quesnel's mayor was distributing denialist literature, the council unanimously denounced the denialist book and supported the findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission". [31] Other organizations also offered public support for the Lhtako Dene First Nation Letter and denounced the book's distribution: a) On March 20, 2024, the Nazko First Nation wrote a letter to the mayor and Council in which it stated: "[i]t should go without saying that Nazko Council and community are extremely disturbed that a book is being distributed in the City that is spreading misinformation and supporting the denial of the negative impacts of the Residential School System on our elders and community members". b) On March 21, 2024, the Superintendent and Board of Education of School District #28 (Quesnel) issued a press release "respect[ing] and honour[ing] the stance of the Lhtako Dene in denouncing this book". c) By letter dated March 22, 2024, the North Cariboo Métis Association wrote "in support of the letter written by Lhtako Dene Nation regarding the local distribution" of the book. d) In an April 1, 2024 Facebook post, the BCGEU wrote, in part: In response to the dismaying events in Quesnel, the BCGEU stands in solidarity with the Lhtako Dene Nation in denouncing the book distributed by Pat Morton and the destructive and false narrative it promotes. The UBCIC Letter and the Impugned Statement [32] On April 2, 2024, Terrence Paul, a member of the Nazko First Nation requested support from the UBCIC in connection with Ms. Widdowson's attendance at the council meeting ("April 2 Meeting") scheduled to commence at 5:30pm that same day. Mr. Paul wrote: Francise [sic] Widdowson has been invited by the council to attend today's city council meeting. This all started when the mayor's wife, Pat Morton, bought a couple cases of the book 'Grave Errors' and handed them out to her clients from her son's tax office (Q-Tax) in Quesnel. Lhtako and Nazko sent letters of response to the City Council expressing serious concerns over the matter. This has now raised some serious concerns, discussion, controversy, and negative comments towards local First Nations. This level of opposition to reconciliation and the truths of colonial impacts on Indigenous Peoples has now captured Quesnel's City mayor. What I'm requesting is some form of support form UBCIC for local First Nations towards Quesnel City Council. [33] Like the Lhtako Dene First Nation, the Nazko First Nation is also located in or around the Quesnel area and is a member of the UBCIC. [34] Andrea Glickman, the policy director for the UBCIC, received Mr. Paul's request. Out of concern for the local First Nations, residential school survivors and their families, and acting on the UBCIC's mandate to its member Nations and Indigenous peoples in British Columbia, the UBCIC executive agreed to provide its support in the form of letter to Quesnel's City Council. [35] Ms. Glickman sent a copy of the letter, as originally drafted, to City Council at 4:59pm on April 2, 2024. After correcting a typo, she re-sent the letter at 5:12pm. She also sent a news release which was also posted on the UBCIC website and circulated through the UBCIC media list. [36] The original letter suggested that City Council had chosen to invite Ms. Widdowson to the council meeting. By email dated April 3, 2024, Councillor Roodenburg advised Ms. Glickman that that was not the case, but that Ms. Widdowson had been invited by a private citizen. Ms. Glickman revised the letter accordingly. She sent the revised letter to City Council at 9:28am on April 3, 2024. [37] The full content of the revised letter ("UBCIC Letter") reads: RE: UBCIC Objects to Quesnel Mayor and Council Invitation to Contributor of book Espousing Residential School Denialism Dear Mayor Paull and City of Quesnel Councillors: We are absolutely disgusted to learn that Frances Widdowson plans to attend today's city council meeting to discuss the book she contributed to called Grave Error: How The Media Misled Us (and the Truth about Residential Schools). We understand that this is on the city council agenda, which begins at 5:00p.m. We are aware that Mayor Paull's wife, Pat Morton, bought cases of the book and handed them out to her clients from her son's tax office (Q-Tax) in Quesnel, in blatant disregard for the impact this would have on residential school survivors and their families. We stand with the Lhtako Dene Nation and object to the promotion of this book and further (re)traumatization of survivors of Residential School. Grave Error is extremely dangerous, encouraging readers to question the existence of residential schools and the treatment that those students who were forced to attend, and experienced atrocities including widespread sexual abuse, medical experimentation, death and who were discarded in unmarked graves. The messages are false and misleading, categorically ignoring the factual evidence provided by survivors and as captured in intensively researched reports including the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and by rigorous ongoing investigations by First Nations and their partners across the country. We are horrified that you are promoting this book through allowing a contributor to attend your meeting and giving her a platform to spread further misinformation after passing a motion denouncing the book. Please find our related press release enclosed. [Emphasis added.] [38] As noted, Ms. Morton's defamation claim is made in respect of the underlined Impugned Statement. [39] The UBCIC did not publish the UBCIC Letter online nor did it circulate it to the media. As noted, a news release was posted on the UBCIC website and circulated through the UBCIC media list. Ms. Morton makes no claim against the UBCIC in respect of that news release. The April 2 Meeting [40] The April 2 Meeting was called to order at 5:30pm. [41] Many of the statements or letters that had been written in support of the Lhtako Dene Nation Letter prior to April 2 were enclosed with the City Council meeting agenda. Those statements and letters were read into the record at the April 2 Meeting. However, neither version of the UBCIC Letter was included on the agenda or read into the record at the April 2 Meeting. [42] After the statements of support were read, various Chiefs and Elders from local Indigenous Bands spoke, followed by members of the gallery, including Ms. Morton. Her comments were not well-received. Rather, Ms. Morton was met with hostility both by council members who cut her comments short and by members of the public, some of whom booed and heckled her. III. Legal framework [43] Section 4 of the PPPA sets out the procedure for the pre-trial dismissal of actions that serve to suppress free expression on matters of public interest. The process was explained and summarized in Hansman at para. 53, as follows: a) First, the applicant defendant must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the proceeding arises from expression that relates to a matter of public interest (s. 4(1)). b) If the defendant does so, the onus shifts to the plaintiff to satisfy the court that there are grounds to believe that: i. the proceeding has substantial merit (s. 4(2)(a)(i)); and ii. the defences raised by the defendant are not valid, in that they can be said to have no real prospect of success (s. 4(2)(a)(ii)). c) If the court is not satisfied that the plaintiff has met their onus as to one or both criteria, it must dismiss the proceeding. d) However, even if the plaintiff shows the proceeding has substantial merit and that the defendant has no valid defence, the court must conduct a public interest weighing exercise, in which the plaintiff must satisfy the court that the harm they are likely to have suffered or are likely to suffer due to the defendant's expression outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression (s. 4(2)(b)). III. Discussion and analysis A. Does the proceeding arise from an "expression" that relates to a "matter of public interest" (s. 4(1))? [44] This threshold burden is on the defendant (the applicant on the application to dismiss under the PPPA) to show both parts of the two-part test: (a) that the proceeding arises from an "expression"; and (b) that the expression "relates to a matter of public interest": 1704604 Ontario Ltd. v. Pointes Protection Association, 2020 SCC 22 [Pointes] at para. 21. [45] As to the first part of the test, "expression" is defined in s. 1 of the PPPA: "expression" means any communication, whether it is made verbally or non-verbally, publicly or privately, and whether it is directed or not directed as a person or entity[.] [46] In this case, there is no dispute that the UBCIC Letter falls within that definition of "expression" or that this proceeding--in which Ms. Morton alleges that the Impugned Statement is defamatory--arises from that expression. [47] In determining the second part of the threshold test, the expression must be assessed "as a whole" and the court must consider whether "some segment of the community would have a genuine interest in receiving information on the subject": Pointes at para. 27, citing Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61 at paras. 101-106. The burden to establish that a matter is one of "public interest" is "purposefully not an onerous one": Pointes at para. 28. [48] In this case, the significant volume and nature of the online commentary following the March 19 Meeting, and the attendance and charged atmosphere at the April 2 Meeting, at which the book was discussed, well demonstrates the local community's interest in the issues raised in the UBCIC Letter. The national attention that the controversy garnered confirms that the interest in the subject matter was not confined to the Quesnel area but extended to the Canadian public more broadly. [49] More generally, I am also satisfied that the ongoing national dialogue regarding the history of residential schools and reconciliation, particularly in the past eleven years since the release of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's report in 2015, is ample evidence of the broader community's genuine interest in the content of the UBCIC Letter. The expression "relates to a matter of public interest". [50] The UBCIC has met the threshold burden under s. 4(1). Accordingly, the burden shifts to Ms. Morton to satisfy the Court that there are "grounds to believe" that: (a) the proceeding has substantial merit, and (b) the applicant has no valid defence in the proceeding. B. Merits-based hurdle (s. 4(2)(a)) 1. Are there grounds to believe the claim has substantial merit? [51] The first prong of the merits-based analysis requires Ms. Morton to show that her claim for defamation has a real prospect of success. This means she must demonstrate that there is a basis in the record, and on the law, to conclude that the prospect of success tends to weigh more in her favour: Pointes at para. 49 [52] To make out a prima facie claim in defamation, a plaintiff must establish that the impugned words: (a) were defamatory in that they would lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person; (b) referred to a plaintiff; and (c) were published in that they were communicated to more than one person: Grant at para. 28; Bent v. Platnick, 2020 SCC 23 at para. 92. [53] Without conceding the point, the UBCIC proceeded on this application on the basis that Ms. Morton has met the "substantial merit" test under s. 4(2)(a)(i), choosing instead to focus on her burden in relation to applicable defences under s. 4(2)(a)(ii). [54] For the purpose of this application, this prong of the merits-based analysis has been established. 2. Are there grounds to believe that the defendant has no valid defence? [55] In its response to civil claim, the UBCIC has raised four defences to the defamation claim: responsible communications, justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege. On this application, it relies only on the latter three. To succeed under s. 4(2)(a)(ii) of the PPPA, Ms. Morton must show that these defences "are not legally tenable or supported by evidence that is reasonably capable of belief such that they can be said to have no real prospect of success": Hansman at para. 94, citing Pointes at para. 59. [56] Under s. 4(2)(a)(ii), Ms. Morton has the burden of establishing that there are grounds to believe that UBCIC has "no valid defence" (emphasis added). Accordingly, if there is any valid defence, the plaintiff has not met the onus, and the underlying claim should be dismissed: Pointes at para. 58. [57] I will start with the defence of justification. a. Defence of justification [58] In Zhao v. Corus Entertainment Inc., 2020 BCSC 1533 [Zhao BCSC] at paras. 78-79, aff'd 2021 BCCA 408 [Zhao BCCA], Milman J. adopted the elements for the defence of justification as summarized by Adair J. in Casses v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2015 BCSC 2150 at para. 550 and by Funt J. in Taseko Mines Limited v. Western Canada Wilderness Committee, 2016 BCSC 109 [Taseko Mines] at paras. 20-23, rev'd in part on other grounds 2017 BCCA 431. As those cases provide, justification (truth) is a complete defence to defamation. The test is "substantial truth". [59] Regarding the "substantially true test", in Taseko Mines at para. 22, the Court adopted the description set out by Raymond E. Brown in his text, Brown on Defamation,[4] that definition includes, in part, the following: A statement is substantially true where the alleged defamatory statement is no more ignominious in the mind of the average listener than a true statement would have been. Minor inaccuracies are acceptable and will be ignored. The literal truth of the precise statement made does not have to be shown. The law "overlooks minor inaccuracies and concentrates upon substantial truth." The test is substantial, not literal, accuracy If a false statement in the publication is immaterial to the gist or sting of the libel, it does not render an otherwise true statement defamatory. The test is "whether the libel as published would have a different effect on the mind of the reader from that which the pleaded truth would have produced." In other words, does the publication make the plaintiff significantly worse off than a literally true publication would have, or would the plaintiff have been exposed to any more opprobrium if the publication had been free from error? It must be "so misleading that it produces a different effect on a reader's mind than would the truth" [Emphasis added.] [60] In this case, Ms. Morton argues that two aspects of the Impugned Statement are "entirely false": (a) that she "bought cases of the book" and (b) that she "handed [the books] out to her clients from her son's tax office (Q-Tax) in Quesnel". [61] Rather, she deposes that (a) she purchased "approximately thirteen (13) copies of the book" (not "cases") over time and (b) "on one occasion only, [she] provided a copy to a client through the QTAX office". [62] As noted, Ms. Morton also concedes to giving one book to the school district (inscribed with the notation "CHILDREN NEED TO BE TAUGHT THE TRUTH!"), offering one to the local MLA (who returned it unread), and giving the remaining books to "close friends and family". Ms. Morton has failed to provide any further information about the identity of those friends and family. [63] Ms. Morton argues that the false statements in the Impugned Statement cannot form the basis for the defence of justification. However, the question is not whether the expression reflects the literal truth. The question is whether the statement is "substantially true". Put another way: is Ms. Morton significantly worse off by the Impugned Statement than she would have been had the asserted literal truth been published? [64] I cannot conclude that she is. [65] A comparison of the Impugned Statement against the statement with the asserted truth demonstrates the point. Again, the Impugned Statement reads: We are aware that Mayor Paull's wife, Pat Morton, bought cases of the book and handed them out to her clients from her son's tax office (Q-Tax) in Quesnel, in blatant disregard for the impact this would have on residential school survivors and their families. [66] Replacing the "false statements" with the asserted truth results in the following modification: We are aware that Mayor Paull's wife, Pat Morton, bought 13 copies of the book. She handed one to a client at her son's tax office (Q-Tax) in Quesnel, provided one to the local school district for their library (with the inscription "CHILDREN NEED TO BE TAUGHT THE TRUTH!"), offered one to a local MLA, and shared the others among personal contacts, friends and family. Her purchase and distribution of the book was done in blatant disregard for the impact this would have on residential school survivors and their families. [67] Ms. Morton does not identify how the Impugned Statement led to any more opprobrium than the asserted truth would have. I am unable to discern any basis on which it did. To the contrary, I am satisfied that the effect of both the Impugned Statement and the literally true statement is the same: Ms. Morton bought many copies of the book and shared or distributed them, including at least one time to a client at the QTax office. [68] I cannot conclude that the Impugned Statement was "so misleading" as to produce a different effect on the reader's mind than the literal truth. [69] In the circumstances, Ms. Morton has failed to show that the defence of justification, as it relates to the aspects of the Impugned Statement that she says are false, has no real prospect of success. [70] Regarding the latter part of the Impugned Statement, that Ms. Morton's conduct was done "in blatant disregard for the impact [it] would have on residential school survivors and their families", the UBCIC relies on the defence of fair comment. [71] I now turn to that defence. b. Defence of fair comment [72] The defence of fair comment applies to "comment" or statements of opinion, as opposed to fact. "Comment" refers to matters of "deduction, inference, conclusion, criticism, judgment, remark or observation which is generally incapable of proof": Grant at paras. 31-32, citing Ross v. New Brunswick Teachers' Assn., 2001 NBCA 62 at para. 56. [73] For the defence of fair comment to apply, the statements must be (a) expressed in relation to a matter of public interest; (b) based on fact; (c) recognisable as comment; and (d) be an opinion that any person could honestly express on those facts: Grant at para. 31, citing WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40 [WIC Radio] at para. 28. [74] However, even where the statement satisfies that objective test, the defence of fair comment can be defeated if the plaintiff proves that the defendant was actuated by express malice: Hansman at para. 96, citing Grant at para. 31; WIC Radio at paras. 1, 28. Malice can be shown by demonstrating that the defendant made the statement knowing it was false, with reckless indifference as to its truth, to injure the plaintiff out of spite or animosity, or for some other improper purpose: Hansman at para. 115, citing WIC Radio at paras. 100-101, 104; Bent at para. 136; Smith v. Cross, 2009 BCCA 529 at para. 34. [75] In that legal framework, I turn to the circumstances of this case. [76] First, I have already concluded that the UBCIC Letter, including the Impugned Statement, was expressed in relation to a matter of public interest. The first requirement for the defence of fair comment has been met. [77] The view that Ms. Morton's conduct was done in "blatant disregard for the impact [it] would have on residential school survivors and their families", is based on Ms. Morton's concession that she, in fact, bought and distributed multiple copies of the book. With no suggestion that Ms. Morton considered the possible impact of that conduct, the second element for fair comment is made out. [78] With respect to the third element--that the statement must be recognisable as "comment"--I start with an examination of the whole of the UBCIC Letter which provides the context in which the Impugned Statement was made. [79] Overall, the letter is primarily comprised of the UBCIC's unmistakable criticism of both the content and impact of the book as well as its promotion, both through Ms. Morton's distribution of the book and by City Council allowing Ms. Widdowson to attend and speak at the April 2 Meeting. The use of the words "absolutely disgusted" (to learn that Ms. Widdowson planned to discuss the book at the April 2 Meeting) and "horrified" (that Council would promote the book by allowing Ms. Widdowson to attend the meeting) to describe its views make the letter easily recognisable as comment, that is a statement of opinion held by the UBCIC. [80] In that context, the statement that Ms. Morton bought and handed out the book "in blatant disregard for the impact this would have on residential school survivors and their families" is also recognizable as comment. [81] As the final element for fair comment, the opinion must be one that any person could honestly express on the facts. In this case, similar opinions were expressed by many other people, including commenters who engaged on social media, the other institutions that wrote letters in support of the Lhtako Dene Nation Letter, the people who attended the "Support for Truth and Reconciliation" rally on April 2, 2024, and the people who spoke out against Ms. Morton at the April 2 Meeting. In other words, the opinion expressed in the UBCIC Letter not only could be honestly held by a person, it was, in fact, held by the UBCIC and many others. [82] The final element of the defence of fair comment has been made out. [83] However, that conclusion does not end the analysis. As noted, the defence can be defeated if the plaintiff proves that the defendant was actuated by express malice. [84] In this case, Ms. Morton alleges that UBCIC made no effort to verify the accuracy of the Impugned Statement before publication, choosing instead to rely on the "unverified hearsay from an unnamed 'member of the Nazko First Nation' for which no affidavit has been produced". I take that allegation to be that the UBCIC acted with malice because they showed a "reckless indifference as to [the] truth" and that that should apply to defeat the defence of fair comment. [85] I do not accede to that argument. [86] First, as set out above, Ms. Glickman expressly identifies Mr. Paul, a member of the Nazko First Nation, as the person who both requested the UBCIC's support at the April 2 Meeting and who provided the information on which the Impugned Statement was based. Ms. Glickman attaches her email communications with Mr. Paul in which he does so. [87] Notably, Mr. Paul was known to Ms. Glickman as being "very involved in his community" and "having previously attended UBCIC meetings as a proxy for the Chief of the Nazko First Nation". Ms. Glickman deposes: Based on Mr. Paul's involvement in the community and his past involvement with the UBCIC, we believed there was a reasonable basis for the information he shared and felt we had a duty to pass along the information to the Quesnel City Council in light of the discussions planned for the meeting that evening. [88] In other words, based on their direct knowledge of Mr. Paul, there was no reason for Ms. Glickman or anyone at the UBCIC to question the veracity of the information he provided regarding Ms. Morton's purchase and distribution of the book. Nor was there any reason to question his bona fide intention in providing that information. Indeed, the information was consistent with the content of the Lhtako Dene Nation Letter and the discussion at the March 19 Meeting regarding Ms. Morton's distribution of the book. [89] There is no evidence to suggest that it was unreasonable for the UBCIC to rely on the information it received from Mr. Paul. [90] Based on Ms. Glickman's and the UBCIC's prior involvement with Mr. Paul and his standing in the community, I am satisfied that the UBCIC held a subjectively honest belief in the views set out in Impugned Statement. That subjective honest belief is enough to defeat a claim of malice: Hansman at para. 115, citing WIC Radio at para. 53. [91] Ms. Morton has failed to show that the defence of fair comment has no real prospect of success. c. Defence of qualified privilege [92] As the final defence on this application, the UBCIC argues that, regardless of the application of the defences of justification and fair comment, the defence of qualified privilege also applies. [93] As the Court explains in Bent at para. 121, qualified privilege is grounded not in free expression values, but in the social utility of protecting particular communicative occasions from civil liability. The privilege "attaches to the occasion upon which the communication is made, not to the communication itself": Bent at paras. 121. [94] An occasion of qualified privilege will exist if: a) A person making a communication has an interest or duty, legal, social, moral, or personal, to publish the information in issue to the person to whom it is published, and b) the recipient has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it. [95] Where the occasion is shown to be privileged, "the defendant is free to publish, with impunity, remarks which may be defamatory and untrue about the plaintiff": Bent at para. 121. [96] However, the privilege is qualified in the sense that it can be defeated. This can occur particularly in two situations: a) where the dominant motive behind the words was malice, such as where the speaker was reckless as to the truth of the words spoken; or b) where the scope of the occasion of privilege was exceeded. See Bent at para.121. [97] The starting point on this analysis is the occasion in which the Impugned Statement was made. [98] In that regard, as noted, the UBCIC has long been engaged in, among other things, advocacy and public education on behalf of its member First Nations and Indigenous peoples generally. As the record discloses, as part of that advocacy, it has been vocal in challenging residential school denialism, including what it views as the dissemination of misinformation harmful to residential school survivors and their families. [99] In light of that mandate and, in particular, given the request for support from Mr. Paul, a member of one of its member Nations, I easily conclude that the UBCIC had a legal, social, or moral duty to communicate with City Council about its honestly held concerns about the discussion of the book planned for the April 2 Meeting. [100] I am also satisfied that, as the elected body hearing from the public about the book and about whom the complaint was made, Quesnel City Council had a corresponding interest in receiving the UBCIC Letter. [101] Ms. Morton argues that qualified privilege should nonetheless be defeated on any one of three grounds: (a) the UBCIC Letter went beyond the occasion of the privilege; (b) the UBCIC Letter was shared beyond the mayor and Council who had an interest in the letter; and (c) the UBCIC Letter was motivated by malice. [102] I do not accept that any of those grounds apply to defeat the defence of qualified privilege. Was the scope of the occasion of privilege exceeded? [103] Ms. Morton does not dispute that the UBCIC had an interest in expressing views on residential school issues. However, in her application response, she argues: By identifying me as "Mayor Paull's wife", the [UBICIC] served no public-interest purpose and transformed what might have been a political comment into a personal and political attack. [104] She also argues that by "naming [her] personally and making a false statement about 'cases of books'", they introduced an unnecessary allegation that was "unrelated to the stated policy issue". [105] I take both arguments to mean that the Impugned Statement exceeded the occasion of the privilege. [106] I do not agree that it does. [107] As part of its more general mandate to challenge residential school denialism, the UBCIC Letter was specifically written in response to what the UBCIC perceived as Council's promotion of the book, not only by Ms. Widdowson's attendance at the April 2 Meeting, but by Ms. Morton's distribution of the book. As the UBCIC perceived it, the fact that Ms. Morton is the mayor's wife tied her purchase and distribution to Council. In other words, the distribution of the book by Ms. Morton, and not any member of the community, was directly relevant to the view that Council promoted the book, that being the very issue that the UBCIC Letter was intended to address. [108] I do not accept Ms. Morton's argument that UBCIC Letter exceeded the scope of the occasion of privilege. Was the UBCIC Letter shared beyond those who had a duty to receive it? [109] I am equally satisfied that the UBCIC Letter was not shared beyond those who had a duty to receive it. [110] Other than sending the letter to City Council and to the Lhtako Dene Nation, the UBCIC did not publish the UBCIC Letter, including on any online platform, nor did it circulate it to the media. There can be no question that the Lhtako Dene Nation, the recipient of UBCIC's support, had a legitimate interest in receiving the letter. I do not understand Ms. Morton to dispute that interest. [111] However, as Ms. Morton notes, the UBCIC Letter was distributed to recipients other than those to whom the letter was addressed. Specifically, both the Lhtako Dene Nation and councillor Roodenburg shared the UBCIC Letter on their respective Facebook profiles. In addition, Mr. Paul included Bob Simpson, the former mayor of Quesnel on an email on which a draft letter was included. [112] Ms. Morton argues those postings and the email to Mr. Simpson resulted in the public distribution of the letter beyond those with a duty to receive it. [113] That argument ignores s. 3 of the PPPA. That section provides: Qualified privilege 3 If an oral or written communication on a matter of public interest, between persons who have a direct interest in the matter, has qualified privilege, that communication has qualified privilege regardless of whether the communication is witnessed or reported by the media or other persons. [114] In my view, s. 3 operates as a complete bar to the suggestion that re-publication of the UBCIC Letter by other persons defeats the qualified privilege. Was malice the dominant motive? [115] As noted, the defence of qualified privilege can be defeated where the dominant motive behind the words was malice, which can be established by "reckless disregard for the truth": Bent at para. 121, 136; Hansman at para. 115. [116] For the reasons that I have set out above with respect to the defence of fair comment, I am satisfied that the UBCIC was not reckless in making the Impugned Statement. Malice does not apply to defeat the defence of qualified privilege. 3. Conclusion [117] Having concluded that Ms. Morton has failed to show that any of the defences raised by the UBCIC on this application, that is, justification, fair comment, or qualified privilege, are not valid defences to the defamation claim, in accordance with the conjunctive requirements of s. 4(2)(a) of the PPPA, the claim for defamation must be dismissed. [118] However, for completeness, I will nonetheless consider the balancing of potential harms contemplated by s. 4(2)(b). C. Public weighing exercise (s. 4(2)(b)) [119] On this analysis, the plaintiff must prove on a balance of probabilities that-- due to "the harm likely to have been or to be suffered" as a result of the defendant's expression--the public interest in allowing the proceeding to continue outweighs the proceeding's "deleterious effects on expression and public participation": Hansman at para. 59, citing Pointes at para. 82. [120] As such, as the first step on this balancing exercise, the plaintiff must present sufficient evidence to enable the Court (1) "to draw an inference of likelihood" of harm of a magnitude sufficient to outweigh the public interest in protecting the defendant's expression; and (2) "to infer a causal link between the defendant's expression and the harm suffered": Hansman at paras. 67-68, citing Pointes at para. 71, Bent at para. 154. [121] As the second step, the Court must consider the public interest in protecting the expression. [122] I will start with the evidence of harm and causation. 1. Evidence of harm and causation [123] In her notice of civil claim, Ms. Morton claims for general damages for reputational harm, defamation, emotional distress, and business losses. She also claims for special damages relating to her "loss of professional standing and community trust". [124] Of those alleged harms, there is no evidence that Ms. Morton suffered business losses as a result of the Impugned Statement (or at all). To the extent that business losses may have been incurred, those losses were incurred by QTax or, alternatively, by Mr. Christieson as the "owner and operator" of QTax, not by Ms. Morton who is an employee. [125] Moreover, Mr. Christieson's evidence of business loss describes learning that QTax had lost the Nazko First Nation as a client shortly after the March 19 Meeting--that is, before the UBCIC Letter was written. [126] Ms. Morton has failed to show any business losses attributable to the Impugned Statement. [127] Similarly, despite her assertions that she has produced all relevant documents, Ms. Morton has provided no evidence on which to substantiate or to quantify the special damages claims for "loss of professional standing and community trust". [128] On the other hand, general damages are presumed in defamation law: Hansman at para. 67. However, "[w]hile the presumption of damages can establish the existence of harm, it cannot establish that the harm is 'serious'". Such presumed damages are insufficient to allow the Court "to draw an inference of likelihood" of harm of a magnitude sufficient to outweigh the public interest in protecting the defendant's expression: Hansman at para. 67. [129] That leaves Ms. Morton's allegations of emotional distress as the sole category of harm to be weighed against the public interest in protecting the UBCIC's expression. [130] Ms. Morton has deposed to a variety of ways in which the emotional distress has manifested. One is her allegation that the "stress and anxiety caused by these events" has had an impact on her health, including flare-ups of a pre-existing health conditions and has resulted in a new issue for which she required surgery. While she concedes that she "cannot say that the stress directly caused [the second health issue]", she believes it contributed to it. However, with nothing more than her bare assertion and her belief, there is no evidentiary foundation on which to conclude her stress and anxiety caused the health issues she alleges. [131] With respect to other forms of emotional distress, Ms. Morton deposes: Since the events of April 2, 2024, and the publicity surrounding the [UBCIC Letter], I have continued to experience distress and fear when appearing in public. The display of hostility at the April 2 Council meeting and the subsequent public reaction made me feel unsafe and unwelcome in my own community. That feeling has persisted to this day. [132] She also claims to have suffered "deep personal distress" and to have "carried the emotional weight of seeing [her] husband's reputation and [her] son's business drawn into the growing controversy "; a controversy she attributes to the UBCIC Letter and which she says was "greatly increased by the [UBCIC's] false statement". [133] However, to the extent that the evidence provides some basis for these claims of emotional distress, I am unable to conclude that those harms were causally linked to the UBCIC Letter or, specifically, to the Impugned Statement. [134] First, as evidence of the public reaction that made her feel "unsafe and unwelcome", Ms. Morton relies on Councillor Roodenburg's re-posting of the UBCIC Letter on April 24, 2024 and the comments it generated. Most, if not all, of those comments are decidedly critical of Ms. Morton. However, while some of the appended comments do appear to respond to Councillor Roodenburg's April 24, 2024 post, others do not. Rather, Ms. Morton appears to have appended comments from different Facebook posts that contain negative comments about her. [135] It is unclear whether the comments from the other posts were appended inadvertently, or whether the misplacement was intentional and intended to create the false impression that Councillor Roodenburg's re-publication of the UBCIC Letter generated the negative comments. Although the UBCIC suggested the latter, Ms. Morton provided no explanation for the inaccuracies. [136] On the evidence before me, I am unable to conclude that Ms. Morton deliberately attempted to mislead the Court. However, the inaccuracy of this evidence makes it an unreliable basis on which to conclude that the UBCIC Letter caused the harm alleged. [137] Second, the UBCIC was not the only entity or person that had spoken out and published statements denouncing Ms. Morton's distribution of the book. As set out above, the Lhtako Dene Nation first did so on March 19. Councillor Elliot, the BC Assembly of First Nations, Nazko First Nation, the Superintendent and Board of Education of School District #28 (Quesnel), the North Cariboo Métis Association, and the BCGEU all publicly supported the Lhtako Dene Nation Letter prior to April 2, 2024, when the UBCIC Letter was written. [138] Given these public statements speaking out against Ms. Morton's distribution of the book, it is difficult to infer any casual link between the UBCIC Letter and any harm that Ms. Morton may have incurred as a result of the public criticism: Hansman at para. 68, citing Pointes at para. 72. When the timing of those public statements is taken into account (i.e., before the date of the UBCIC Letter), the causal link is virtually impossible to infer. [139] Third, as demonstrated by the significant volume of critical and hostile online comments about Ms. Morton's conduct prior to April 2 and the open hostility she faced at the April 2 Meeting, public criticism of Ms. Morton started before the UBCIC Letter was written or made public. Indeed, as Ms. Morton herself states, the tone of the March 19 and April 2 Meetings demonstrated that the subject of her association with the book "had already become highly charged and controversial" (emphasis added). [140] The same is true of the impact of the public reaction on her son and husband. Mr. Christieson complains of losing QTax's contract with the Nazko First Nation "shortly after the March 19, 2024 Council meeting". A petition calling for Mayor Paull's resignation, citing Ms. Morton's circulation of "harmful media aimed at spreading misinformation about the experience of Indigenous children in Residential Schools" was created on March 23, 2024. [141] Even accepting that Ms. Morton may have experienced public hostility, distress, and fear as alleged, the timing of events--many of which occurred before the UBCIC Letter was written--belies any suggestion that her emotional distress was caused by the UBCIC Letter itself. [142] I have considered the possibility that even if not the cause, the UBCIC Letter may have exacerbated or heightened the level of public hostility and criticism that existed. Ms. Morton argues that it did. However, there is nothing on the evidence that would suggest that that is case or that, if it did, it did so in any meaningful way. [143] I am unable to conclude that the UBCIC Letter was the cause of any emotional distress that Ms. Morton may have suffered. 2. Public interest in protecting UBCIC's expression [144] The other side of the weighing exercise evaluates that public interest in protecting the defendant's expression: Hansman at para. 79. That assessment is informed by s. 2(b) Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms jurisprudence, which grounds the level of protection afforded to expression in the nature of the expression. The closer the expression lies to the core values of s. 2(b), "the greater the public interest in protecting it": Hansman at para. 79, citing Pointes at para. 77. [145] Those core values include "participation in political decision-making". "Counter-speech", that is speech that contributes to public discourse by countering ignorant or harmful expression, is also in "close proximity" to the s. 2(b) values: Hansman at paras. 79 and 81. [146] In Pointes at para. 80, the Supreme Court of Canada outlined other factors that may inform the weighing exercise. Of those, most relevant to the circumstances at bar include the defendant's history of activism or advocacy in the public interest and the possibility that the expression or the claim might provoke hostility against an identifiably vulnerable group, or a group protected under s. 15 of the Charter or human rights legislation. [147] Collectively, the above considerations support the conclusion that the UBCIC's expression, that is, the UBCIC Letter, including the Impugned Statement, is deserving of protection that outweighs the public interest in remedying any harm that Ms. Morton may have incurred. [148] As noted, the UBCIC has a long and established history of activism and advocacy in the public interest and has been vocal in challenging residential school denialism. Given its well-documented work in that regard, there can be little, if any, dispute that the UBCIC Letter was written with that goal in mind and, in particular, with the goal of responding to what it viewed as the dissemination of misinformation harmful to residential school survivors and their families. In that way, like the expression at issue in Hansman, the UBCIC Letter can be described as counter-speech that is within a close proximity of the core values of s. 2(b) of the Charter: at paras. 80-83. [149] The individuals the UBCIC Letter was intended to protect--Indigenous people generally and residential school survivors and their families in particular--are also a marginalized, protected group in Canadian society which further enhances the public interest in protecting its expression. [150] Finally, the fact that the UBCIC Letter was written to address what the UBCIC perceived as the promotion of the book by City Council reflects its participation in political decision-making and brings the expression squarely within the s. 2(b) core values most deserving of protection. [151] In the circumstances, I find that there is a high public interest in protecting the UBCIC's expression set out in the UBCIC Letter, including the Impugned Statement. 3. Conclusion [152] Together, the findings that: a) Ms. Morton has incurred negligible (if any) harm as a result of the UBCIC Letter, and b) a high level of protection is to be afforded to the UBCIC's expression, easily tip the weighing of the public interest in favour of protecting the expression contained in the UBCIC Letter, including the Impugned Statement. [153] Even if Ms. Morton could succeed on her defamation claim against the UBCIC, this is a case in which the balancing of competing values--the freedom of expression and free debate versus and the protection of reputation--favours the dismissal of her claim against the UBCIC. IV. Conclusion and costs [154] The UBCIC's application to dismiss the action pursuant to s. 4 of the PPPA is allowed. Ms. Morton's defamation claim against the UBCIC is dismissed. [155] Given the dismissal, pursuant to s. 7(1) of the PPPA, the UBCIC is entitled to costs on the application and in the proceeding, assessed as costs on a full indemnity basis. However, if Ms. Morton opposes that presumptive order, she will have 30 days from the date of these reasons to file and serve written submissions regarding costs. [156] If Ms. Morton provides submissions, the UBCIC will have a further 21 days in which to file and serve written response submissions. Ms. Morton will have a further 7 days for written reply. [157] If Ms. Morton does not file and serve submissions within 30 days, costs are awarded to the UBCIC in accordance with s. 7(1) of the PPPA. "Ahmad J." [1] C.P. Champion, Tom Flanagan, Grave Error: How The Media Misled Us (and the Truth about Residential Schools), (Canada: True North and Dorchester Books, 2025) ("book"). [2] Hansman v. Neufeld, 2023 SCC 14 at para. 2. [3] Hansman at para. 51. [4] Raymond E. Brown, Brown on Defamation: Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, United States, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 1999) (loose-leaf updated 2013, release 1) vol. 3 at 10-45 to 10-48, 10-56 to 10-57.