The Anti-SLAPP Era in BC: What 2026 Defamation Cases Tell Us

Par : Kate Daniels-Addison

June 19, 2026

What is Anti-SLAPP?

Although being the subject of defamation or being sued for defamation can feel like a slap in the face, SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

Typically, a powerful or famous party sues a journalist, activist, former employee, or community members. The goal of the lawsuit isn’t always to win, it’s often to discourage criticism, create legal costs, and temper public debate. BC’s Protection of Public Participation Act (“PPPA”) aims to curb these claims before a full trial.

L’article 4 de la PPPA prévoit ce qui suit :

(1) In a proceeding, a person against whom the proceeding has been brought may apply for a dismissal order under subsection (2) on the basis that

(a) the proceeding arises from an expression made by the applicant, and
(b) the expression relates to a matter of public interest.

(2) If the applicant satisfies the court that the proceeding arises from an expression referred to in subsection (1), the court must make a dismissal order unless the respondent satisfies the court that

(a) there are grounds to believe that

(i) the proceeding has substantial merit, and
(ii) the applicant has no valid defence in the proceeding, and
(b) the harm likely to have been or to be suffered by the respondent as a result of the applicant’s expression is serious enough that the public interest in continuing the proceeding outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression.

In practical terms, anti-SLAPP allows defendants to seek an early dismissal of the claim, reduce litigation costs, and often includes cost consequences in their favour. For plaintiffs, anti-SLAPP raises the bar significantly to prove their claim, forcing them to show real harm and a strong case.

Morton v. Union of BC Indian Chiefs, 2026 BCSC 788

On April 30, 2026, Justice Ahmad dismissed the defamation case brought by the Mayor of Quesnel’s wife, Pat Morton. In early 2024, Morton had purchased several copies of the book Grave Error: How the Media Misled Us (and the Truth about Residential Schools). She handed at least one out at her son’s tax office, sent one to the school district for their library, and distributed other copies amongst family and friends. The book’s author was scheduled to attend a City Council meeting shortly thereafter. The Union of BC Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) wrote to the City Council denouncing the attendance of the author and stating that the book was harmful to residential school survivors and community members due to false and misleading messages about residential schools in the book. The letter addressed Morton specifically, stating that she “bought cases of the book and handed them out to her clients from her son’s tax office (Q-Tax) in Quesnel, in blatant disregard for the impact this would have on residential school survivors and their families.” Morton subsequently brought a defamation suit against the UBCIC.

In dismissing the action, the Court emphasized that:

• the expression addressed issues of significant public importance;
• any reputational harm to the plaintiff was minimal or speculative; and
• permitting the lawsuit to proceed would undermine the PPPA’s core purpose.

This reflects an important shift. Earlier PPPA cases focused heavily on whether the plaintiff could show a prima facie case. More recent decisions place increasing weight on whether the alleged harm is real, concrete, and proportionate to the speech being challenged.

Key takeaway: Plaintiffs who cannot point to tangible reputational damage — beyond offence or discomfort — face a steep uphill battle.

Baker v. France, 2026 BCSC 850

On May 8, 2026, the BC Supreme Court addressed the PPPA again. In Baker v. France, Justice Hamilton dismissed a defamation claim arising from critical Facebook posts about a mayor and municipal council under s. 4 of the PPPA. The Facebook posts criticized municipal governance and levied multiple allegations against the mayor, including those of sexual harassment.

The Court had little difficulty finding that:

• the impugned posts were an expression;
• the expression related to a matter of public interest; and
• the plaintiff could not demonstrate that the harm allegedly suffered outweighed the public interest in protecting the speech.

Notably, the Court treated a community Facebook page as a legitimate forum for political debate, not a fringe or casual space undeserving of protection. Once the public interest threshold was met, the action collapsed under the familiar PPPA balancing exercise.

Key takeaway: Criticism of elected officials — even when blunt, emotional, or imperfectly sourced — will usually engage the PPPA. Plaintiffs must now assume that municipal-related defamation claims start on the defensive.

What these cases signal for defamation litigants in 2026

L’intérêt public est interprété de manière large

• Public interest is interpreted broadly
• Early dismissal is now the norm, not the exception, where the PPPA applies
• Reputational harm must be real and measurable, not inferred
• Courts are alert to strategic litigation framed as defamation

For plaintiffs, this means defamation litigation in BC requires a much more rigorous front-end assessment than it did even five years ago. For defendants, particularly those speaking on matters of public concern, the courts are increasingly willing to provide early protection.

Conclusion

Considering the above two recent cases, BC courts are actively policing the boundary between reputation and public discourse. Defamation claims remain available for genuinely harmful falsehoods, but it is no longer a flexible tool for silencing criticism. In this era, the threshold question is no longer “is this defamatory?” but “is this lawsuit worth the public cost of suppressing expression?”