Niemela v. Malamas Page 8 The common law authorities in Canada and the United Kingdom have suggested the guiding principle that interlocutory injunctions should only be granted to restrain in advance written or spoken words in the rarest and clearest of cases — where the words are so manifestly defamatory and impossible to justify that an action in defamation would almost certainly succeed. Given the value we place on freedom of expression, particularly in matters of public interest, that guiding principle has much to recommend it. [Emphasis in original.] [20] As can be seen from the above passages, where defamation is alleged by the party seeking an interlocutory injunction, the threshold required to meet the first part of the three-part RJR-MacDonald test is elevated from a “serious question to be tried” to the “clearest of cases” where the words complained of are “manifestly defamatory”. This elevated threshold in defamation cases was also discussed by Grauer J. in Gant v. Berube, 2013 BCSC 1721 at paras. 12 and 16. [21] To show the statements are manifestly defamatory the plaintiff must satisfy the test for defamation as articulated in Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61 at para. 28: (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. [22] As I will explain further below, a central question on Google’s application is whether Google published the words complained of by Mr. Niemela. However, it is not necessary to determine that question here in order to dispose of the application for an injunction against Google. [23] That is so because even if the plaintiff were to meet the heightened threshold at the first step of the RJR-MacDonald test, his application fails on the second and third steps for the following reasons. 2015 BCSC 1024 (CanLII) With the coming into force of the Canadian Charter and the Quebec Charter, these safeguards protecting freedom of expression and freedom of the press have become even more compelling.