Canada Case Law

Morton v. Union of BC Indian Chiefs

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The UBCIC Letter was expression on a matter of public interest; plaintiff conceded substantial merit but failed to show the defendant had no valid defences — justification (substantial truth), fair comment, and qualified privilege each have real prospects of success; plaintiff failed to establish causation or harm sufficient to outweigh the high public interest in protecting the UBCIC's counter-speech; therefore the defamation claim is dismissed under PPPA s.4(2).

Source excerpt

• Protection of public participation act (pppa)
• Justification (truth)
• Fair comment
• Qualified privilege
• Public interest balancing
• Costs (s.7)

Read case analysis

Arabiboushehri v. Malekpour

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Although the impugned Video related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiffs met the s.4(2) PPPA threshold by establishing grounds to believe their defamation claim has substantial merit and that the defendants have no valid defence given material omissions, lack of investigative diligence, and evidence supporting malice (attempted quid pro quo, failure to contact head office, reposting after injunction); on balance the public interest favors allowing the claim to proceed, therefore the s.4 dismissal application is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Protection of public participation
• Responsible communication
• Justification (truth)
• Fair comment
• Qualified privilege
• Malice

Read case analysis

Bonnis v. Clark

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff lacked capacity to consent to the sexual activity due to intoxication (alcohol induced anterograde amnesia), but the defendant honestly and reasonably believed she was consenting; consequently the defendant established the reasonable belief defence and is not liable in civil sexual battery. Statements by the plaintiff that the defendant touched her sexually without consent are substantially true (truth defence), statements asserting he had sex with her while she was unconscious were not true but were protected by qualified privilege in the context…

Source excerpt

• Consent
• Capacity to consent
• Intoxication and blackouts
• Reasonable belief in consent
• Qualified privilege
• Truth defence

Read case analysis

Heller v. Law Society of British Columbia

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Application to strike the defendant's Response is dismissed because, assuming the truth of pleaded facts, the Response is not plainly and obviously devoid of reasonable defences; the pleaded contextual facts are capable of supporting defences of fair comment, qualified privilege and responsible communication, and discovery and malice issues are matters for trial or separate process.

Source excerpt

• Strike pleadings (rule 9-5)
• Qualified privilege
• Fair comment
• Responsible communication
• Abuse of process
• Discovery and notice to admit

Read case analysis

CreateAbundance International Institute Inc. v. Direct News Pvt Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Court conducted full s.4 PPPA analysis: applicant met threshold that Article was expression on matter of public interest; respondents have a real prospect that claim is defamatory (spying, cult, implication in homicide) and may have substantial merit, and respondents met parts of s.4(2)(a) concerning merits, but respondents failed to establish a real prospect of proving malice and failed under s.4(2)(b) to show harm outweighs public interest in expression. Applicant's s.8 damages claim dismissed (no bad faith/improper purpose). Application to dismiss against non‑defaulting defendants adjourne…

Source excerpt

• Anti‑slapp
• Protection of public participation act s.4 analysis
• S.7 costs (full indemnity)
• S.8 damages (bad faith/improper purpose)
• Responsible communication
• Fair comment

Read case analysis

Bhullar Enterprises Inc. v. Miller

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a defamation claim under British Columbia’s anti-SLAPP law, found the defendant’s podcast related to public interest, and awarded full indemnity costs.

• Justification
• Fair comment
• Responsible communication
• Qualified privilege
• Section 4 balancing (serious harm and causation)
• Affidavit admissibility

Read case analysis

Galati v. Toews

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal: the motion judge correctly found the challenged communications related to a matter of public interest, correctly applied the 'grounds to believe' evidentiary standard and permissibly concluded the appellant failed to show both that his claims had substantial merit and that the respondents had no valid defences (including absolute privilege for LSO complaint and justification/fair comment/qualified privilege for the email and FAQ); the motion judge did not err in the discretionary weighing under s.137.1(4)(b) where the appellant failed to establish cau…

Source excerpt

• S.137.1 courts of justice act
• Public interest threshold
• Grounds to believe standard
• Fair comment
• Justification (truth)
• Absolute and qualified privilege

Read case analysis

Silvercore Advanced Training Systems Inc. v. Beer

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found partial liability for conversion and defamation in a business dispute over social media accounts, employment duties and online statements.

• Social media ownership
• Qualified privilege
• Justification (truth)
• Fair comment
• Damages assessment
• Consideration for employment contract

Read case analysis

Terris v. Meisner

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The defendant was liable for defamation for the Facebook posts in November 2016 because those posts clearly identified the plaintiff, made false factual assertions (no pillowcase was placed over the patient's face; a towel draped a few inches from the face was used), the defendant failed to establish justification on the balance of probabilities, and the fair comment defence failed because it was based on untrue or distorted facts; general damages of $60,000 were awarded and no loss of income damages were granted.

Source excerpt

• Publication
• Identification
• Justification
• Fair comment
• Damages
• Procedural fairness

Read case analysis

Neufeld v. Bondar

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed Barry Neufeld’s defamation appeal, upholding findings that his “strip-tease artist” remark was defamatory and rejecting justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege.

• Justification (truth)
• Fair comment
• Qualified privilege
• Damages
• Punitive damages
• Standard of review

Read case analysis