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

Almrei v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court confirmed non-disclosure of redacted portions of Justice Mosley’s 2024 judgment, but approved limited summaries for disclosure.

• Disclosure
• Public interest balancing
• Csis human source privilege (s 18.1)
• Canada evidence act s 38/s 38.06
• Redaction and summaries
• Mosaic effect

Read case analysis

R. v. Munro

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Bail pending appeal was granted because the appellant satisfied the statutory thresholds: the appeal raised arguable grounds, the risk of flight was low given deposit of passports and strong family ties, and the public interest balancing favoured reviewability over enforceability provided adequate sureties (mother as residential surety, father as supplementary) and strict house arrest conditions with financial pledges, thereby assuaging public safety and public confidence concerns.

Source excerpt

• Bail pending appeal
• Public interest balancing
• Sureties and supervision
• Child sexual assault
• Publication restrictions

Read case analysis

Callender-Prasad v. Tesfay

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court partly granted an anti-SLAPP application, striking several defamation claims over Instagram Stories but allowing serious sexual misconduct and drug-use allegations to proceed.

• Anti-slapp (pppa)
• Public interest balancing
• Fair comment defence
• Justification/truth defence
• Causation of reputational harm
• Pruning of pleadings

Read case analysis

Canada (Attorney General) v. Bilali-Mtemi

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court confirmed a Canada Evidence Act s. 38 non-disclosure order for redacted MONUSCO information, finding injury to international relations and national security.

• Canada evidence act s.38 third-party rule
• Disclosure obligations (stinchcombe)
• Public interest balancing
• Amicus curiae in classified proceedings
• Canada-evidence-act-s-38
• Third-party-rule

Read case analysis

Seismotech IP Holdings Inc. v. Ecobee Technologies ULC

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Motion Judge did not err: the bona fide criterion, while lower than a prima facie standard, requires minimal merits-based particulars to ensure a claim is not frivolous; the pleadings and evidence failed to establish a bona fide claim against unnamed consumers; the public interest balancing properly included access to justice concerns given the mass, technical and costly nature of the litigation; accordingly the refusal to grant the Norwich order was affirmed.

Source excerpt

• Norwich order
• Pre-trial discovery
• Bona fide criterion
• Public interest balancing
• Pleadings sufficiency
• Access to justice

Read case analysis

Williams v. VAC Developments Limited

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The motion judge's public interest balancing was correct: VAC failed to adduce evidence from which a court could infer a likelihood of sufficiently serious harm to outweigh the public interest in protecting Williams' expression, so the counterclaim was properly dismissed under s.137.1; the fresh evidence motion was irrelevant and dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Anti-slapp
• Courts of justice act s.137.1
• Public interest balancing
• Wrongful dismissal
• Damages evidence
• Defence of fair comment

Read case analysis

Manuel v. Astakeesic

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

British Columbia defamation case about social media posts on Band election and governance. The court dismissed the action under PPPA s. 4 and denied an interim injunction.

• Interlocutory injunction
• Protection of public participation act s.4 dismissal
• Fair comment
• Justification/truth defence
• Qualified privilege
• Malice

Read case analysis

R. v. B.P.

Court

Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal

The application for judicial interim release was allowed because the appellant met the s.679(3) criteria: at least one ground raising a non-frivolous question of law (the s.11(b) delay issue), the appellant demonstrated he will surrender and provided a release plan with surety and promise, and detention was not necessary in the public interest given low public safety risk, measures to mitigate flight risk, and the need to preserve meaningful reviewability of the convictions.

Source excerpt

• Conviction appeal
• Section 11(b) delay
• Judicial interim release criteria
• Public interest balancing
• Trial judge credibility and interruptions

Read case analysis