Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiffs alleged they were defamed by Facebook posts accusing them of misconduct related to a community association.

• Defendants sought to dismiss the claim under British Columbia’s anti-SLAPP legislation (PPPA), asserting protection of public interest expression.

• The court found that while the posts touched on matters of public interest, many statements were unsupported and potentially malicious.

• Defendants failed to provide particulars for their fair comment defence and did not properly raise a justification defence.

• Cross-examinations revealed a lack of factual foundation for many of the defamatory statements made.

• The court dismissed the PPPA application, allowing the defamation lawsuit to proceed.

Facts of the Case

The dispute arose from tensions between members of two community groups in Stave Falls, Mission, British Columbia. The plaintiffs, former board members of the Stave Gardens Community Association (SGCA), were targeted in a series of critical Facebook posts after a contentious annual general meeting in November 2022. Some posts accused them of rigging the board election, secrecy, embezzlement, and other forms of wrongdoing.

The defendants, who included SGCA members and administrators of the Stave Falls Community Facebook Group, posted or allowed the posting of numerous statements that allegedly damaged the plaintiffs’ reputations. Some posts were made by non-parties but were "liked" or permitted by group administrators, drawing the court’s attention to their role in publication.

Legal Proceedings and Applications

The defendants brought a motion under section 4 of the Protection of Public Participation Act (PPPA), arguing that the lawsuit should be dismissed as it was based on expression related to a matter of public interest. In response, the plaintiffs filed two cross-applications: one to strike the fair comment defence for lack of particulars, and another to strike portions of the defendants' affidavits as inadmissible.

The court considered whether the case met the threshold for a PPPA dismissal, including whether the claims had substantial merit, whether the defendants had valid defences, and whether the harm suffered by the plaintiffs outweighed the public interest in protecting the expressions.

Court's Findings

The court found that while the Facebook posts related to community governance—a matter of public interest—many of the statements crossed into harmful, unsupported accusations. Accusations of fraud, embezzlement, and secrecy were made without factual basis. Under cross-examination, several defendants admitted they lacked evidence to support their claims.

The fair comment defence was technically in play but severely undermined due to the defendants’ failure to provide required particulars. The justification defence was not properly raised. Moreover, the court found strong grounds to believe the statements were made with malice, further disqualifying the fair comment defence.

Outcome

The court dismissed the defendants’ application to strike the claim under the PPPA, allowing the defamation lawsuit to proceed. It found that the plaintiffs’ claim had substantial merit, the defence lacked prospects of success, and the reputational harm suffered outweighed the public interest in shielding the expressions. The court noted that while public discussion is protected, it must not be reckless or baseless, especially when reputations are at stake.