To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Courts — Dismissal of proceeding that limits debate — Defamation

(0:00:09) Reasons for Judgment: Karakatsanis J. (Wagner C.J. and Rowe, Martin, Jamal and O’Bonsawin JJ. concurring)
(0:00:20) I. Introduction – 1
(0:05:39) II. Background – 11
(0:21:09) III. Procedural History – 38
(0:21:12) A. British Columbia Supreme Court, 2019 BCSC 2028, 59 C.C.E.L. (4th) 205 (Ross J.) – 38
(0:22:28) B. Court of Appeal for British Columbia, 2021 BCCA 222, 50 C.L.R. (6th) 217 (Willcock, Fenlon and Voith JJ.A.) – 41
(0:24:04) IV. Analysis – 44
(0:25:08) A. Section 4 of the PPAA – 46
(0:32:50) B. Issue 1: Public Interest Weighing – 57
(0:37:13) (1) Harm Likely to Have Been or to Be Suffered by the Plaintiff as a Result of the Defendant’s Expression – 63
(0:37:31) (a) Evidence of Harm and Causation – 64
(0:42:53) (b) The Chilling Effect on the Plaintiff and Others Similarly Situated – 73
(0:47:30) (2) Public Interest in Protecting the Defendant’s Expression – 79
(0:56:48) C. Issue 2: No Valid Defence – 94
(0:57:44) (1) Fair Comment Defence – 95
(1:00:01) (a) Was the Expression Based on Fact? – 99
(1:07:12) (b) Was the Expression Recognizable as Comment, Rather Than an Imputation of Fact? – 108
(1:11:45) (c) Was the Fair Comment Defence Defeated by Malice? – 115
(1:14:24) (d) Other Errors Found by the Court of Appeal – 120
(1:15:52) D. Motion for Fresh Evidence – 121
(1:16:28) V. Conclusion – 122
(1:16:57) Dissenting Reasons: Côté J.
(1:17:02) I. Overview – 123
(1:22:18) II. Analysis – 133
(1:31:01) A. Fair Comment Defence – 144
(1:31:03) (1) There Are Grounds to Believe That Mr. Hansman Cannot Avail Himself of a Fair Comment Defence for at Least Some of His Statements – 144
(1:38:55) B. Public Interest Hurdle – 158
(1:38:58) (1) The Harm Likely to Have Been or to Be Suffered by Mr. Neufeld Is Very Serious – 158
(1:44:06) (2) The Public Interest in Allowing Mr. Neufeld’s Claim to Proceed to Trial Outweighs the Public Interest in Protecting Mr. Hansman’s Expression – 167