In Baker v. France, 2026 BCSC 850, the court dismissed a defamation action commenced by a local government elected official in relation to a series of allegedly defamatory social media posts on a community Facebook page. 

This decision highlights the extent to which courts will protect public expression regarding elected officials and public bodies.

Background

The defendant made a series of posts to a community Facebook page.  The posts included allegations against the Mayor and Council.  The court summarized the allegations contained in the posts as follows (para. 60):

1. The Mayor engaged in behaviour constituting sexual harassment;
2. Formal sexual harassment complaints were made;
3. The Mayor and Council did not handle the complaints properly; and
4. As a result, the complaints were not resolved promptly and inexpensively.

The plaintiff commenced a defamation action against the defendant in relation to these posts, claiming the statements were untrue and caused him reputational and other damage.

Prior to determination of the defamation claim on its merits, the defendant brought an application to dismiss the action pursuant to s. 4 of the Protection of Public Participation Act, S.B.C. 2019, c. 3 (PPPA). 

The Test for Dismissing a Defamation Claim under PPPA

The PPPA is a pre-trial screening process in which defamation claims are assessed to determine if the public interest in preserving free speech and debate outweighs the harm the plaintiff’s defamation action purports to address.  The PPPA was introduced to address so-called SLAPP actions – “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” – and is sometimes referred to as anti-SLAPP legislation.

The three-step test to determine whether an action should be dismissed was outlined by the B.C. Court of Appeal in Hobbs v. Warner, 2021 BCCA 290 at paras. 11-15 as follows:

1. At the first stage, the applicant defendant must demonstrate that the defamation proceeding arises from an expression made by the defendant in relation to a matter of public interest;
2. At the second stage, the onus shifts to the respondent plaintiff. The plaintiff must satisfy the judge that there are grounds to believe that the proceeding has substantial merit, and the defendant has no valid defence to the proceeding; and
3. At the third stage, the court will weigh “the public interest in allowing meritorious lawsuits to proceed against the public interest in protecting expression on matters of public interest.”

The Court’s Analysis

The court held that the first stage was satisfied.  The Facebook posts were an expression in relation to a matter of public interest.

With respect to the second stage, the court held that while the defamation action had “substantial merit” within the meaning of the test, the defendant had at least one valid defence to the action: the defence of justification (truth), which is a complete defence to defamation.  The court found that the preliminary evidence considered on the application was sufficient to rebut the plaintiff’s argument that the allegations were untrue.  The defence of justification therefore had a real prospect of success.

Finally, the court weighed the harm to the plaintiff against the harm to the public interest in free expression.  The court noted that “the proper management and functioning of a municipal government affects a community’s quality of life” and engages the citizenry’s Canadian Charter right to freedom of expression (para. 123), and is therefore deserving of significant protection, noting at para. 128:

[The Facebook posts] amounted to free expression about substantive issues of local politics, matters that were clearly matters of public interest.  Political engagement is a core concept in a democracy.  The strength of the democratic process is the opportunity for individuals to hold elected officials to account.

The court further found that the plaintiff had not established he had suffered a significant degree of harm as a result of the Facebook posts.  The public interest in free expression outweighed the harms allegedly suffered as a result of that expression.

The court dismissed the defamation action on the foregoing basis.

Takeaways for Local Governments

Local governments, elected officials, and staff members are frequent targets of critical social media posts.  At times, these social media posts may include insulting language and bold accusations.

Officials and staff should think carefully before commencing defamation proceedings in relation to public statements impugning their conduct and credibility.  The court’s dismissal in Baker v. France is a strong indication that the public interest in free expression will weigh heavily in the court’s analysis where the target of that expression is a public official.  The decision also clarifies that Facebook posts may be considered expressions related to a matter of public interest within the meaning of PPPA.

Jacob Gehlen

Jacob Gehlen is an associate in SMS Law’s litigation group. Jacob has extensive litigation experience across diverse areas of practice, including insurance defence, environmental law, commercial litigation, regulatory law, construction law, and defamation. He has appeared as lead counsel at all levels of court in British Columbia.