Précédent 24 / 104 Next

D.L.R. (4th) 121, [2021] 12 W.W.R. 488, 71 C.C.E.L. (4th) 191, 74 C.C.L.T. (4th) 216, Ross J., 2019 BCSC 2028, 59 C.C.E.L. (4th) 205, 61 C.C.L.T. (4th) 107, [2019] B.C.J. No. 2269 (QL), 2019 CarswellBC 3513 (WL). Appeal allowed, Côté J. dissenting. Robyn Trask and Michael Sobkin, for the appellant. Paul E. Jaffe, for the respondent. Chantelle Rajotte, Emily Lapper and Steven Davis, for the intervener the Attorney General of British Columbia. Brendan MacArthur-Stevens and Renee Reichelt, for the interveners QMUNITY and the Skipping Stone Scholarship Foundation. Caroline Carrasco, for the intervener the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Lillianne Cadieux-Shaw and Alexi N. Wood, for the intervener the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Dustin Klaudt, M. Tristan Miller and Grace McDonell, for the interveners the Community-Based Research Centre and the Canadian Centre for Gender & Sexual Diversity. 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) [2021] B.C.J. No. 1245 (QL), 2021 CarswellBC 1816 (WL), setting aside a decision of

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

● ● ●

Hansman v. Neufeld

Case Law

Country

Canada

Country Location

Latitude: 62.07067909300361

Longitude: -107.72231232402085

Country Location (Lié Case Law): Canada

Decision Date: 19 mai 2023

Case Status: Affaire Résolue

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Acquittal

Keywords

Defamation / Reputation
Gender
LGBTQI
Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)

Judicial Body: Suprême (cour d'appel de dernière instance)

Court Name: Supreme Court of Canada

Case Number: 39796

Case Summary: On May 19, 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the public interest in protecting expression justified the dismissal of a defamation suit filed by a public school board trustee against a teacher who publicly criticized the trustee’s comments on an educational initiative aimed at fostering inclusion and respect for students who may face discrimination in school because of their gender identity and sexual orientation. After the trustee, Barry Neufeld, posted disparaging remarks about the initiative on Facebook, the teacher, Glen Hansman, was quoted in several media interviews describing Neufeld’s comments as “bigoted,” “hateful,” and “transphobic.” Neufeld filed a defamation action against Hansman. Following a reversal in the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s dismissal order, reasoning that Hansman’s speech was dissenting political speech in defense of a vulnerable group. For the Court, Hansman’s speech was within the “core” speech protected by the Canadian Constitution. As a result, the Supreme Court considered that the public interest in allowing Hansman’s speech outweighed any harm the speech caused to Neufeld.

Case Significance: Mixed Outcome

The majority ruling notably expands the protection of counter-speech, particularly in defense of marginalized communities like the 2SLGBTQ+ population, by reinforcing the fair comment defense and highlighting the importance of preserving robust debate on significant societal issues. However, Justice Côté’s dissent raises concerns about a possible contraction of expression, emphasizing that dismissing Neufeld’s defamation claim at an early stage could discourage controversial or unpopular views, particularly those critical of government policies, from being expressed. This decision reflects a complex approach that seeks to enhance public debate while also considering the potential chilling effects on expression—particularly against those holding views outside the mainstream. Ultimately, while the decision leans towards expanding protections for speech that supports vulnerable groups, it also leaves room for debate about the limits of such protections when reputational harm is at stake.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Source Name and URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: 18 oct. 2024

Documents principaux

Decision.pdf
English
Télécharger Vue

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

Hansman v. Neufeld

Documents principaux

Notifications