Case information

Judgments and orders — Anti SLAPP legislation — Summary dismissal — Defamation — University student making allegations of physical and sexual assault against professor — Professor suing student for defamation — Student applying for dismissal of defamation action pursuant to provincial legislation designed to protect individuals from “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” — In response to dismissal application, professor seeking disclosure of student’s communications to various individuals — Chambers judge and Court of Appeal ordering student to disclose documents — How does procedure of legislation meant to protect expression and participation on matters of public interest align with its purpose? — How do courts balance competing interests of a defendant in seeking dismissal of a claim, and the interests of a plaintiff in resisting dismissal of that claim, under anti SLAPP legislation? — What is purpose and effect of legislative stay of proceedings under anti SLAPP legislation? — What is scope of court’s discretion to order document production once dismissal application is filed and stay is automatically in place? — How do courts give effect to rights of sexual assault complainants and societal interest in encouraging reporting in the course of litigating anti SLAPP applications? — Protection of Public Participation Act, S.B.C. 2019. c. 3.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) (SEALING ORDER) (COURT FILE CONTAINS INFORMATION THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION BY THE PUBLIC)

Following allegations of physical and sexual assault made by his then graduate student (“A.B.”), Steven Galloway commenced a defamation action against A.B. and against other individuals who allegedly repeated the allegations online. In the course of the litigation, A.B. brought an application under s. 4 of the Protection of Public Participation Act, S.B.C. 2019, c. 3, a provincial statute designed to protect individuals from “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” (“anti SLAPP legislation”), for dismissal of Mr. Galloway’s defamation claim against her. During cross-examination in the context of the dismissal application, Mr. Galloway’s counsel sought production and disclosure of certain documents thought to be relevant to A.B.’s allegations and to the validity of the defences that were being advanced by A.B. in the defamation action. The requests for disclosure were refused. Mr. Galloway then asked the court to order production and disclosure of the documents. The chambers judge, Justice Murray of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, allowed Mr. Galloway’s application for disclosure, and ordered A.B. to produce and disclose various documents and correspondences related to her disclosure of the allegations. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed A.B.’s appeal, finding that the disclosure ordered by the chambers judge was measured in scope and justified on grounds of relevance.