A British Columbia Supreme Court judge has ruled that a former University of British Columbia professor should be allowed to continue libel lawsuits against a former student who accused him of sexual assault and many others who commented on the allegations publicly. .
Eleven people who were sued by author Steven Galloway following widely publicized allegations that he sexually assaulted a student, allegations for which he was never criminally charged and which he has repeatedly denied, attempted to have the claims dismissed. The legal tool they used to argue that the lawsuits should be thrown out was a relatively new provincial law designed to protect freedom of expression and avoid using lawsuits to silence people from speaking out on matters of public concern.
British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Elaine Adair heard his challenge for nine days in April.
Adair’s decision, published Thursday, is 242 pages long and contains a unique analysis of the comments made by each of the 11 defendants. The fundamental question in determining whether the cases would be thrown out was the balance of public interests: does the public interest in protecting the statements made by Galloways’ prosecutors outweigh the public interest in allowing you to appeal to potentially restore your reputation?
Adair concluded that while there is a public interest in protecting the speech of persons who report sexual assault, it does not outweigh Galloway’s right to attempt to restore his reputation through libel suits.
“In my opinion, the damage to Mr. Galloway’s reputation from being called a rapist and someone who has perpetrated criminal acts is probably serious and sustained. Litigation appears to be the only avenue available for a possible rehabilitation of Mr. Galloway’s reputation, ”wrote Adair. “I say ‘possible’ because the final outcome of Mr. Galloway’s claims litigation is unknown. An impartial tribunal will decide. “
Galloway, author of the award-winning novel “The Cellist from Sarajevo” and former director of the creative writing program at the University of British Columbia, was charged in 2015 by a former student of sexual harassment and sexual assault.
Although he was never criminally charged, he was later suspended and later fired by the university. A labor arbitrator later awarded him more than $ 200,000 in damages after finding his privacy rights had been violated when the university announced his suspension and firing.
Galloway subsequently filed a defamation lawsuit against his accuser, known in court documents as “AB,” along with two dozen others, including two professors, alleging that they had “recklessly repeated” AB’s accusations to others in the university community and on the Internet, damaging your personal and professional reputation.
Subsequently, eleven of the defendants filed lawsuits against the Strategic Litigation against Public Participation or against the SLAPP, seeking to have the claim dismissed for reasons of free expression in matters of public interest. They cited legislation passed in British Columbia in 2019 known as the Public Participation Protection Act. (A similar law was passed in Ontario in 2015).
David Wotherspoon, AB’s attorney, told the Star after Adair’s decision was released that one of the reasons for trying to have the lawsuit against AB dismissed was that there are already many reasons why sexual violence does not it is reported in Canada.
“A big part of our goal is to try to have the SLAPP legislation interpreted in a way that reduces concern about retaliation (for people who report sexual violence),” Wotherspoon said. “At least in terms of this decision, we were unsuccessful. So we are disappointed. “
Adair wrote that while it is important to encourage reporting of sexual assault, he does not believe this is an adequate reason to dismiss a civil lawsuit against one person accusing another of a felony.
“It is beyond dispute that there is a very significant public interest in encouraging the reporting of sexual assault,” wrote Adair. “I do not agree that giving greater weight to the public interest in allowing Mr. Galloway’s claims to proceed means that the justice system does not value reporting sexual assault allegations. Allowing Mr. Galloway’s claims to continue provides AB at least the opportunity for a full and public claim. “
Wotherspoon said he highlighted this paragraph in the decision, saying he thought it “misstated the problem faced by victims of sexual assault.”
“For many people who are victims of sexual assault, they do not seek vindication,” he said. “They are looking to move on.”
In a statement sent to the Star, Daniel Burnett, Steven Galloway’s attorney, said the judge rejected “almost all of the defendants’ arguments”, finding that there were “reasonable grounds” for Galloway to argue that he was released, arguments that would ultimately be decided by a judge of first instance.
Adair’s decision dismissed some of the lawsuits on the grounds that they were not filed within the time period required by the statute of limitations.
“What I can say at this point is that the plaintiff disagrees with that,” Burnett wrote.
Adair’s decision came down to balancing two issues of public importance. He found that the harm to Galloway from the many sexual assault allegations against him, made by AB and repeated by others, was severe.
“Every statement and every post on Twitter, which could mean that Mr. Galloway is a rapist and AB sexually assaulted, is defamatory and contributes (often in the thousands of viewers) to maintaining and repeating allegations of sexual assault and misconduct against him, ”the judge wrote.
“The damage Mr. Galloway has likely suffered is closer to the higher end of the spectrum that deserves protection. This means that the public interest in allowing Mr. Galloway’s claim to proceed is also closer to the high end. On the other hand, I have concluded that the public interest in protecting AB No 2 it is somewhere between the middle and the high.
AB No. 2 refers to one of the two cases reviewed by Adair in which Galloway alleges that AB released him.
“In that sense, I conclude that the public interest in Mr. Galloway continuing the procedure with respect to AB No. 2 outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression. “
With files from Douglas Quan
Reference-www.thestar.com