The B.C. Supreme Court has dismissed a defamation case against a news outlet brought by a Surrey trans activist, saying the outlet acted in the public interest.
Jessica Simpson brought the claim against Rebel News Network Ltd., founded by Ezra Levant.
Simpson previously went by the name Jessica Yaniv.
She is well known to British Columbians for several Human Rights Tribunal cases, including one against female aestheticians who would not wax her.
Simpson claimed harassment and defamatory publications about her by Rebel News on YouTube, its webpage, and various social media platforms.
"Had Ms. Simpson been able to show real damage to her reputation flowing from the impugned reporting, the dubious quality of the expression in issue here could easily have tipped the scales in favour of allowing the action to proceed," Justice Warren Milman said.
In his July 12 decision, Milman said Rebel News could be seen as reporting in the public interest as Simpson has made herself a public figure.
"I am satisfied that some members of the public would have a genuine interest in knowing about those things, if true, inasmuch as they can fairly be said to 'affect the welfare of citizens,'" he said.
"In addition, Ms. Simpson has deliberately courted public notoriety and controversy through her online activism and otherwise," he said. "It follows that her public conduct can fairly be said to be matters "to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached."
In her notice of civil claim, Simpson said she had a "valued and unblemished reputation in the Province of British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada and throughout the world" before Rebel News reported on her.
Milman disagreed.
"Contrary to Ms. Simpson's pleading in the [claim], however, her reputation was not previously 'unblemished,'" the judge wrote.
He said Rebel News gave evidence Simpson was already the target of extensive adverse publicity from other sources, even before Rebel News began reporting about her.
"Rebel News was only one of many voices conveying a similar message," Milman said.
Moreover, the judge said, "the invective directed by Rebel News at Ms. Simpson was often matched by that directed by her at Rebel News and others through her own social media posts. That is the nature of the arena in which she has chosen to engage. She has also resorted to litigation, or threats of litigation, including defamation suits such as this one, in an effort to stifle criticism."
Critical news coverage
Milman said the tribunal proceedings garnered a lot of media attention locally, nationally and internationally. Much of the coverage was critical, the judge said. "Few of those critics were more outspoken than Rebel News," Milman said.
Rebel News relied on the defences of fair comment, qualified privilege and reportage; justification or truth; and responsible communication.
"I have concluded that Rebel News has met its burden to show that this action arises from expression relating to a matter of public interest," the judge said.
However, Milman said many statements by the Rebel News reporters in 15 YouTube video clips conveyed at least some of the defamatory meanings enumerated in Simpson's claim. She met her burden of the defamation test.
Milman did add a caveat on journalistic fair comment.
"Although I have accepted that Rebel News has a viable defence of 'fair comment,' on the basis that the views expressed were ones that could honestly be held on the facts presented, it does not follow that the underlying inferences were always reasonably drawn," he said.
"Of particular concern in that regard is the fact that much of the name-calling directed at Ms. Simpson echoed, and tended to reinforce, pernicious stereotypes about transgender people generally."
