It will take some time to read and digest this voluminous judgment. But I must say, similar to the test for summary judgment (whether it’s plain and obvious that a claim cannot stand and shouldn’t go to trial), if you find yourself dispatching 400+ paragraphs as to why the claim isn’t a bad faith strategic ploy, then perhaps you’ve gone too far in the analysis. Surely it’s better to err on the side of letting claims proceed?
It seems odd to me that Galloway’s dismissed claims have been finally adjudicated on a pure textual analysis, but the ones that remain must go through a further layer of judicial scrutiny on the merits. Isn’t the issue simply whether the claim is intended to create mischief as opposed to being a bone fide claim for damages? This should have been much quicker.
The purpose of SLAPP motions is to prevent the powerful from silencing public speech under threat of defamation, so the standard is high. For the claims to proceed, Galloway had to prove the likelihood of a win at trial. That's why the judge had to rule on each individual charge, for each individual defendant.
It's also why it's so significant that the judge explicitly ruled that in each charge proceeding Galloway had met the bar for his defamation suits. The defendants were trying to short circuit a trial. They failed. They also wanted two cracks at getting the charges thrown out. Here too, this judgment makes clear they are unlikely to succeed.
Given that this crew had driven Galloway near suicide, I'm not surprised he was late filing against the two who escaped trial on that technicality. I'm crossing fingers for an appeal in those two cases. Their antics and those of their enablers have disgraced CanLit.
Annabel Lyon’s contribution to AB’s receiving a Master degree when she didn’t complete her thesis, I am pretty sure has no statute of limitations at UBC. Not a great career move there - yet UBC has been really shifty lacking any integrity about this whole situation. Yet, is there some sort of appeal that can be made? I am pretty sure Mr. Galloway’s barriers to completing this filing within the time frame against Annabel Lyon could be categorized under ‘non-trivial’.
I believe Maillard, another prof defendant, was also involved in that MA fiasco. UBC will never act on *anything* to do with this. Acknowledge error and their entire position implodes: They're like the Church on inerrancy.
'Hopefully' is the operative word. It would require massive media coverage and massive public/alumnae donor backlash. Given the missing and dishonest coverage of this case I see no chance of that happening with the media: It would make them look bad. And frankly, I don't think the general public is that invested in CanLit, which means neither is the media.
Any accountability would have happened at the time of the UBC Accountable letter. UBC got a black eye, but the payout was a rounding error -- and have they ever released the Boyd report? Going forward, where are the media stars like Atwood and Boyden (at the time) to generate clickbait?
So yes, hope springs eternal... But I fear it goes to UBC to die.
Regardless of the points of law, you can count on seeing an appeal. The defence has appealed at every step even when they've had little hope of success.
An appeal? Really? What a waste of time for our justice system! Clearly, the defendants have lost. It is time for them to settle out of court instead of doubling down. Or are they in the clutches of unethical lawyers who are milking them dry and feeding them false hopes?
From reading transcripts, their lawyers are ill-prepared dead enders. The whole crewl present as delusional narcissists; the woke academic/arts equivalent of Stop the Steal anti-vaxxers.
I also think it's too late for a non-ruinous out of court settlement. The non-prof defendants have nothing more to lose than a bit of grant money.
How much is this costing them? And how about Galloway? Do either have funding? (The defendants must be cash strapped given the incompetence of their lawyer.)
I am seventy. 'Hopefully' I'll see the judgment before I die. (I fear "Jarndyce and Jarndyce." )
Well, that was a fascinating read. My understanding of defamation litigation has considerably improved in reading the judgement. So, Annabel Lyon gets off the hook, simply because of the Limitation Act. In any case, I hope that in reading the judgement, she realizes that she made an incredible error in believing A.B.'s narrative. If Annabel had any integrity, she would apologize to Steven Galloway after the whole thing is over. The dismissal of proceeding against Alicia Elliott's seems clear on the merits. As for the rest, I guess Galloway will now see them again in court. This is if they don't seek to settle out-of-court, which their lawyers may well be advising them to do. I look forward to your breakdown and analysis of this judgement.
*If* Lyon had any integrity she would have apologized to Galloway years ago. This is a bit like Vietnam for all of them. Having doubled down for so long, they sink deeper and deeper, but have no way to retreat. Or as Macbeth said: "I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that, should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er."
"What A.B. told Professor Maillard and Professor Lyon about her contact with the CBC was a fiction. However, both Professor Maillard and Professor Lyon again asked no questions, and the CBC Document was presented at the November Meeting as if it was a true statement of the facts."
#2 "Neither Professor Maillard nor Professor Lyon contacted Mr. Galloway to warn him about what was going on, or to get his side of events. Indeed, based on Professor Lee’s notes of the November Meeting, Professor Maillard went out of his way in a phone call with Mr. Galloway to deceive him. Both Professor Maillard and Professor Lyon refused to answer Mr. Galloway’s phone calls."
"[545] In my view, and in the context of the PPPA Applications, all of this provides grounds to believe that Professor Maillard and Professor Lyon were reckless so as to meet the legal test for malice, and their malice would defeat a defence of qualified privilege respecting Maillard No. 1 and Lyon Nos. 1 and 2.
#4
[546] "As for Ms. Rooney, on the record, there are grounds to believe that she was motivated by spite and ill-will toward Mr. Galloway. She was clearly pre-disposed to believe the worst of Mr. Galloway, and motivated (with encouragement from A.B., Professor Maillard and Professor Lyon) to recruit others to her point of view."
[647] "In my view, and in the context of the PPPA Applications, Mr. Galloway does not need to do more to satisfy his burden under PPPA s. 4(2)(b). On the record, the harm – monetary, professional and non-monetary – suffered by Mr. Galloway is serious and extensive. Every statement, and every post on Twitter, capable of bearing the meaning that Mr. Galloway is a rapist and sexually assaulted A.B., is defamatory and contributes (often in the thousands of viewers) to maintaining and repeating the allegations of sexual assault and criminal misconduct against him."
#6
"The reputational harm is inflicted with – that is, caused by – each statement and post. At this stage, Mr. Galloway is not required to prove harm or causation, but simply must provide evidence for the court to draw an inference of likelihood in respect of the existence of the harm and the relevant causal link: Pointes, at para. 71; and Bent, at paras. 154 and 160. In my opinion, Mr. Galloway has done this."
#7
"[655] Accordingly, I conclude that there is a strong public interest in permitting Mr. Galloway’s claims in respect of the Remaining Expressions to continue. In my view, the harm likely to have been suffered by Mr. Galloway from the Remaining Expressions lies close to the high end of the spectrum, and so too does the public interest in allowing his claims in respect of those Expressions to proceed."
Thank you for the update, Brad.
It’s a new genre for the defendants. It’s called the law. Glad to have this update.
It will take some time to read and digest this voluminous judgment. But I must say, similar to the test for summary judgment (whether it’s plain and obvious that a claim cannot stand and shouldn’t go to trial), if you find yourself dispatching 400+ paragraphs as to why the claim isn’t a bad faith strategic ploy, then perhaps you’ve gone too far in the analysis. Surely it’s better to err on the side of letting claims proceed?
It seems odd to me that Galloway’s dismissed claims have been finally adjudicated on a pure textual analysis, but the ones that remain must go through a further layer of judicial scrutiny on the merits. Isn’t the issue simply whether the claim is intended to create mischief as opposed to being a bone fide claim for damages? This should have been much quicker.
The purpose of SLAPP motions is to prevent the powerful from silencing public speech under threat of defamation, so the standard is high. For the claims to proceed, Galloway had to prove the likelihood of a win at trial. That's why the judge had to rule on each individual charge, for each individual defendant.
It's also why it's so significant that the judge explicitly ruled that in each charge proceeding Galloway had met the bar for his defamation suits. The defendants were trying to short circuit a trial. They failed. They also wanted two cracks at getting the charges thrown out. Here too, this judgment makes clear they are unlikely to succeed.
Given that this crew had driven Galloway near suicide, I'm not surprised he was late filing against the two who escaped trial on that technicality. I'm crossing fingers for an appeal in those two cases. Their antics and those of their enablers have disgraced CanLit.
Annabel Lyon’s contribution to AB’s receiving a Master degree when she didn’t complete her thesis, I am pretty sure has no statute of limitations at UBC. Not a great career move there - yet UBC has been really shifty lacking any integrity about this whole situation. Yet, is there some sort of appeal that can be made? I am pretty sure Mr. Galloway’s barriers to completing this filing within the time frame against Annabel Lyon could be categorized under ‘non-trivial’.
I believe Maillard, another prof defendant, was also involved in that MA fiasco. UBC will never act on *anything* to do with this. Acknowledge error and their entire position implodes: They're like the Church on inerrancy.
And some point the focus will hopefully shift back to UBC.
'Hopefully' is the operative word. It would require massive media coverage and massive public/alumnae donor backlash. Given the missing and dishonest coverage of this case I see no chance of that happening with the media: It would make them look bad. And frankly, I don't think the general public is that invested in CanLit, which means neither is the media.
Any accountability would have happened at the time of the UBC Accountable letter. UBC got a black eye, but the payout was a rounding error -- and have they ever released the Boyd report? Going forward, where are the media stars like Atwood and Boyden (at the time) to generate clickbait?
So yes, hope springs eternal... But I fear it goes to UBC to die.
Regardless of the points of law, you can count on seeing an appeal. The defence has appealed at every step even when they've had little hope of success.
An appeal? Really? What a waste of time for our justice system! Clearly, the defendants have lost. It is time for them to settle out of court instead of doubling down. Or are they in the clutches of unethical lawyers who are milking them dry and feeding them false hopes?
From reading transcripts, their lawyers are ill-prepared dead enders. The whole crewl present as delusional narcissists; the woke academic/arts equivalent of Stop the Steal anti-vaxxers.
I also think it's too late for a non-ruinous out of court settlement. The non-prof defendants have nothing more to lose than a bit of grant money.
How much is this costing them? And how about Galloway? Do either have funding? (The defendants must be cash strapped given the incompetence of their lawyer.)
I am seventy. 'Hopefully' I'll see the judgment before I die. (I fear "Jarndyce and Jarndyce." )
I am very glad to read this judgement. I hope Mr. Galloway finally gets justice at trial and that this case forever changes defamation law in Canada.
Madam Justice Adair seems to have written a bullet proof assessment which cannot be appealed. So now we can get as close to the truth as is possible.
Well, that was a fascinating read. My understanding of defamation litigation has considerably improved in reading the judgement. So, Annabel Lyon gets off the hook, simply because of the Limitation Act. In any case, I hope that in reading the judgement, she realizes that she made an incredible error in believing A.B.'s narrative. If Annabel had any integrity, she would apologize to Steven Galloway after the whole thing is over. The dismissal of proceeding against Alicia Elliott's seems clear on the merits. As for the rest, I guess Galloway will now see them again in court. This is if they don't seek to settle out-of-court, which their lawyers may well be advising them to do. I look forward to your breakdown and analysis of this judgement.
*If* Lyon had any integrity she would have apologized to Galloway years ago. This is a bit like Vietnam for all of them. Having doubled down for so long, they sink deeper and deeper, but have no way to retreat. Or as Macbeth said: "I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that, should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er."
Here are a few of my picks:
#1
"What A.B. told Professor Maillard and Professor Lyon about her contact with the CBC was a fiction. However, both Professor Maillard and Professor Lyon again asked no questions, and the CBC Document was presented at the November Meeting as if it was a true statement of the facts."
#2 "Neither Professor Maillard nor Professor Lyon contacted Mr. Galloway to warn him about what was going on, or to get his side of events. Indeed, based on Professor Lee’s notes of the November Meeting, Professor Maillard went out of his way in a phone call with Mr. Galloway to deceive him. Both Professor Maillard and Professor Lyon refused to answer Mr. Galloway’s phone calls."
#3
"[545] In my view, and in the context of the PPPA Applications, all of this provides grounds to believe that Professor Maillard and Professor Lyon were reckless so as to meet the legal test for malice, and their malice would defeat a defence of qualified privilege respecting Maillard No. 1 and Lyon Nos. 1 and 2.
#4
[546] "As for Ms. Rooney, on the record, there are grounds to believe that she was motivated by spite and ill-will toward Mr. Galloway. She was clearly pre-disposed to believe the worst of Mr. Galloway, and motivated (with encouragement from A.B., Professor Maillard and Professor Lyon) to recruit others to her point of view."
#5
[647] "In my view, and in the context of the PPPA Applications, Mr. Galloway does not need to do more to satisfy his burden under PPPA s. 4(2)(b). On the record, the harm – monetary, professional and non-monetary – suffered by Mr. Galloway is serious and extensive. Every statement, and every post on Twitter, capable of bearing the meaning that Mr. Galloway is a rapist and sexually assaulted A.B., is defamatory and contributes (often in the thousands of viewers) to maintaining and repeating the allegations of sexual assault and criminal misconduct against him."
#6
"The reputational harm is inflicted with – that is, caused by – each statement and post. At this stage, Mr. Galloway is not required to prove harm or causation, but simply must provide evidence for the court to draw an inference of likelihood in respect of the existence of the harm and the relevant causal link: Pointes, at para. 71; and Bent, at paras. 154 and 160. In my opinion, Mr. Galloway has done this."
#7
"[655] Accordingly, I conclude that there is a strong public interest in permitting Mr. Galloway’s claims in respect of the Remaining Expressions to continue. In my view, the harm likely to have been suffered by Mr. Galloway from the Remaining Expressions lies close to the high end of the spectrum, and so too does the public interest in allowing his claims in respect of those Expressions to proceed."
[