Cyber Libel Updates

Canadian Internet Defamation Rulings
This case is filed under Substantive Defences
See all Substantive Defences Cases ➤
2019 December 19
Lyncaster v. Metro Vancouver Kink Society, 2019 BCSC 2207

The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed a defence application for an order dismissing this defamation lawsuit as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Publication (“SLAPP”) pursuant to the Protection of Public Participation Act, S.B.C. 2019.  The lawsuit concerns a letter read out during a town hall meeting of the Metro Vancouver Kink Society and the subsequent publication of the minutes of that meeting.  Referring to Ontario Court of Appeal decisions relating to similar legislation in Ontario, the Court concluded that the expression at issue concerned matters of public interest, but that there were grounds to believe the lawsuit had substantial merit.  Further, although “a reasonable judge could likely find that the test for a defence of qualified privilege is made out”,  the fact that the letter was published on the defendant Society’s Facebook page and a “kink community website” may defeat the qualified privilege defence by constituting excessively wide publication. The court noted that “the impugned postings would be seen by people around the world” and “read by people who may never interact with [the plaintiff]”.  The “audience for the postings went far beyond [the defendant Society’s] own membership.” “By publishing to the world at large at the town hall and in print on-line the defendants may be unable to establish the required reciprocity necessary to engage the defence of qualified privilege.”  The Court noted, among other things, that the plaintiff’s claim “does not have the hallmarks of the type of anti-SLAPP suit contemplated in the legislative debate” which preceded enactment of the Protection of Public Participation Act. “I do not conclude that this is a situation in which [the plaintiff] is attempting to use this litigation to stifle expression or silence his critics.”  “There does not appear to be a power differential in favour of [the plaintiff] arising from greater access to the financial resources required to advance his litigation.  Arguably, with respect to the parties’ ability to fund this litigation, the power differential favours the defendants.”