Activist doesn’t have to take down allegedly defamatory posts: judge

Article content material

Allegedly defamatory posts by Calgary activist Taylor McNallie can keep on-line pending a civil trial between her and a metropolis police officer, a choose has dominated.

In a written resolution posted on-line, Justice Colin Feasby declined to situation an injunction in opposition to town lady ordering her to take away earlier posts and stopping her from posting different feedback sooner or later.

Article content material

Article content material

Const. Kyle Peterson is suing McNallie for defamation in reference to feedback she made on social media about his conduct at a “Free Palestine” rally on Nov. 19.

“Const. Paterson says that the statements are unfaithful and convey him into disrepute,” Feasby mentioned in his resolution.

“He has commenced an motion for defamation in opposition to Taylor McNallie and the unnamed defendants. Const. Peterson seeks an interlocutory injunction requiring Ms. McNallie to take down allegedly defamatory social media posts and stopping her from making additional posts pending trial.”

Together with the social justice activist, Peterson names Jane and John Doe as defendants in his assertion of declare.

Feasby mentioned regardless of Peterson’s assertions the posts are false, McNallie “stands by her statements and asserts they’re true. She had additionally pleaded that her statements are truthful remark and accountable communications on a topic of public curiosity.”

The Courtroom of King’s Bench choose additionally mentioned the check for granting an injunction in defamation instances is extra stringent than in different civil litigation issues as a result of it offers with an individual’s proper to freedom of expression.

Article content material

Article content material

Feasby mentioned a celebration in search of an injunction in opposition to a person in such a case would want to ascertain the revealed feedback are “clearly defamatory” and an applicant “should set up that there is no such thing as a sustainable defence of justification … absolute or certified privilege, or truthful remark.”

He famous McNallie “describes herself as an educator on racial and social justice points who opposes police violence.”

Peterson claimed that 4 posts by McNallie have been defamatory, however Feasby mentioned two could possibly be discovered to be common feedback about police conduct and a 3rd, naming Peterson, was “cryptic and doesn’t seem to state any information.”

However he mentioned the fourth remark made by McNallie, during which she alleges he kicked a pregnant lady and ripped off her hijab, if proved to be false, could be “manifestly defamatory.”

Peterson not solely denied the accusation, however mentioned he was “stationed in a car a number of blocks away from the protests and was not concerned in any of the arrests that day.”

Feasby mentioned to grant the injunction on that submit he must consider Peterson and disbelieve McNallie.

Article content material

“The excessive worth positioned on freedom of expression dictates that within the early phases of a defamation motion, an interlocutory injunction restraining expression shouldn’t be granted besides in clear instances,” he mentioned.

However the choose added activists aren’t immune from having damages ordered in opposition to them.

“The facility possessed by the police and the vital and legit position that public criticism of the police performs in selling higher police conduct doesn’t give activists licence to falsely accuse cops of misconduct,” Feasby mentioned.

“Freedom of expression is not going to excuse a promoter of false statements from legal responsibility.”

KMartin@postmedia.com

X: @KMartinCourts

Article content material