Case information

Courts — Applications for dismissal of proceeding that limits debate — Defamation — Valid defences — Fair comment — Qualified privilege — Public interest weighing exercise — Applicability of malice to defences and public interest weighing exercise — Application of British Columbia legislation providing for dismissal of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) — Defamation action concerning statements made by numerous defendants after university student reporting allegations of physical and sexual assault against professor — Whether plaintiff’s burden is alleviated if expression complained of concerns allegedly criminal conduct — Whether plaintiff’s burden is lowered when suing many people engaged in widespread public debate — Whether an expression’s publication on social media decreases the public interest in protecting it — Whether there is a sexual assault exception to the rule that the expression of a subjective honest belief cannot be malicious — Whether expressions of honest belief in a report of sexual assault made to support or defend a complainant fall at the low-end of the protection-deserving spectrum at the weighing stage of the anti-SLAPP test — When is disclosure of sexual violence outside of formal reporting channels deserving of protection under the anti-SLAPP test and the law of qualified privilege? — What is the proper approach to the issue of malice in sexual assault cases? — When will the reputational interests of those alleged to have perpetrated sexual offences outweigh the public interest in allowing sexual assault survivors to speak about their experiences and trauma? — Protection of Public Participation Act, S.B.C. 2019, c. 3, s. 4.<br>

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) (CERTAIN INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC)

These three applications arise from a number of pre-trial applications under British Columbia’s Protection of Public Participation Act (“PPPA”). The respondent, Steven Galloway, brought a defamation claim against a number of defendants including all the applicants. Mr. Galloway is a novelist and former tenured professor. He alleges that the defendants each defamed him by repeating the allegations made by a former graduate student, the applicant, A.B. These allegedly defamatory statements occurred in different forums, including on Twitter, and over the course of several years. The applicants sought to have Mr. Galloway’s action dismissed on various bases, including that their expressions were protected because they were acting in situations of qualified privilege or addressing a matter of public interest. The chambers judge dismissed most of the PPPA applications, thereby allowing Mr. Galloway’s action to proceed with respect to most of the alleged defamatory statements. There were appeals and cross-appeals to the British Columbia Court of Appeal (“BCCA”), raising numerous issues and challenging the judge’s application of various elements of the framework set out at s. 4 of the PPPA. The BCCA determined that many of the grounds invited it to engage in a re-weighing exercise, which was not its role. It determined that the applicable framework from 1704604 Ontario Ltd. v. Pointes Protection Association, 2020 SCC 22, [2020] 2 S.C.R. 587, and Bent v. Platnick, 2020 SCC 23, [2020] 2 S.C.R. 645, continued to apply even after the decision in Hansman v. Neufeld, 2023 SCC 14. The BCCA found that, in light of the legal framework and evidence, the judge’s reasoning was sound and reflected a thorough consideration of the issues before her. It agreed with her overall conclusions and found no reviewable errors.