(6) “Awan the liar, part 6”; (7) “Awan the liar, part 7”. [72] The defendant did not say the other three students were liars, even though all the prior publications he relies upon as lies were joint statements of all four of them. He did so even though it was the plaintiff who was, as the defendant put it at trial, finally telling the truth. Yet he focused on the plaintiff only. I return to this point below. [73] The BCHRT Reasons for Decision were issued on October 10, 2008: Elmasry v. Roger’s Communications Ltd., 2008 BCHRT 378, 64 C.H.R.R. D/509. The complaints were dismissed. The Tribunal concluded that both Dr. Habib and Mr. Awan were deeply offended by the article and many would share their view. The Tribunal further found that the article contained numerous factual, historical and religious inaccuracies about Islam and Muslims. However, it found that the complainants had not met their burden of demonstrating that the article rose to the level of “detestation, calumny and vilification” necessary to breach s. 7(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210. [74] The plaintiff did not sue for defamation in 2008. He had student debt and wanted to get on with his articling job at Lerners. This action was precipitated by a further post by the defendant in June of 2009. The plaintiff and Ms. Mithoowani had written a letter to the editor of the Toronto Star in response to an article written by the defendant. On June 4, 2009, the defendant posted: “Awan the liar, part 8”. It was a more lengthy post, and included hyperlinks to all the above-listed earlier posts. It is also complained of in this action. [75] A libel notice was then served on the defendant, who posted it on his blog with a further article. The defendant began a fundraising campaign for his legal expenses, with the assistance of Mr. Steyn. This action was then commenced, and a further post at that time is complained of. Analysis [76] As set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 640, at para. 28, the plaintiff in an action for defamation is required to prove three things to obtain judgment and an award of damages: (1) that the impugned words were defamatory, in the sense that they would tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person; (2) that the words in fact referred to the plaintiff; and, (3) that the words were published, meaning that they were communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff. [77] If these elements are established on a balance of probabilities, falsity and damage are presumed: Grant, at para. 28. 2014 ONSC 6890 (CanLII) Page: 12