Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a s. 137.1 dismissal, holding the action failed at the substantial-merit stage and the costs award stood.
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
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
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
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
The defendant's impugned council and public statements were expressions on matters of public interest; there are grounds to believe the defence of qualified privilege is available for those communications and it was not defeated by malice on the record; the plaintiff therefore has not established there are grounds to believe the defendant has no valid defence, and the public interest in protecting political expression outweighs the asserted harm, so the action is dismissed under s.4(2) PPPA.
Source excerpt
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
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.
Summary trial dismissed the plaintiff’s defamation and lockout claims, held the August 23 email was not defamatory and was protected by qualified privilege, and declared the plaintiff a vexatious litigant.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed a motion to bifurcate a defamation trial, finding the UBC and Twitter defendant issues were too interwoven.
Explore more
