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

Stanley v. Matties

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The defendants' pleadings adequately identify the material facts and give the plaintiff fair notice of the case to be met; the particulars sought primarily request evidence and overly granular factual detail which is obtainable by discovery, therefore the application for particulars is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Particulars
• Qualified privilege
• Justification (truth)
• Pleadings
• Discovery
• Costs (any event of the cause)

Read case analysis

Galloway v. A.B.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed a motion to bifurcate a defamation trial, finding the UBC and Twitter defendant issues were too interwoven.

• Bifurcation and severance
• Trial management
• Qualified privilege
• Justification (truth)
• Responsible communication
• Republication

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

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

Wiss v. Khan

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Summary judgment in a defamation action was dismissed because unresolved factual disputes about qualified privilege, truth, intent, and credibility required trial.

• Qualified privilege
• Justification (truth)
• Fair comment
• Publication and republication
• Malice
• Summary judgment (rule 9-6)

Read case analysis

Burjoski v. Waterloo Region District School Board

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Although the motion judge erred by not considering the public interest in protecting the appellants' post‑meeting speech, the record nonetheless provided grounds to believe the respondent's defamation claim had substantial merit, the appellants lacked reasonable prospects of succeeding on defences (justification, fair comment, qualified privilege) because the Board Chair attributed statements to the respondent she did not make and acted with at least reckless indifference to the truth, and the likelihood and seriousness of reputational harm to the respondent outweighed the public interest in…

Source excerpt

• S.137.1 courts of justice act screening test
• Qualified privilege
• Fair comment
• Justification (truth)
• Public interest weighing under s.137.1(4)(b)
• Jurisdictional issue re labour arbitration

Read case analysis

Amber Mortgage Investment Corp. v. Guo

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Interlocutory injunction in a defamation case dismissed after the court found the proposed translations inadmissible and the pleaded defences not bound to fail.

• Interlocutory injunction
• Translation admissibility
• Pleading requirements
• Justification (truth)
• Fair comment
• Responsible communication

Read case analysis