User:Patar knight/Hansman

is a Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) case on defamation law. It found that counterspeech against anti-transgender views were protected under British Columbia's anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) legislation. The case was the first SCC case to deal with British Columbia's anti-SLAPP legislation and was also the first time the high court addressed anti-transgender discrimination.

Background
Barry Neufeld was a public school board trustee in Chilliwack, British Columbia who made online posts criticizing provincial

In 2018, Neufeld sued Hansman for defamation, and Hansman brought an application to dismiss under s 4 of the Protection of Public Participation Act, British Columbia's anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) legislation.

Trial court
The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the case against Hansman, finding that under the Protection of Public Participation Act, British Columbia's anti-SLAPP legislation, the harm of proceeding with the case and suppressing debate on a matter of public interest was outweighed by the harm suffered by Neufeld if the case was dismissed.

British Columbia Court of Appeal
The British Columbia Court of Appeal (BCCA) overturned the trial ruling and ruled that Neufeld's defamation lawsuit could proceed. The BCCA said that the trial court ruling would have a chilling effect"on public discourse by discouraging "people who hold contentious opinions on hotly debated topics" from defending their reputations against defamatory counterspeech. Hansman appealed the BCCA ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Supreme Court of Canada ruling
In a 6-1 majority ruling written by Justice Andromache Karakatsanis, the Supreme Court of Canada granted Hansman's appeal and reinstated the lower court's order dismissing Neufeld's lawsuit under British Columbia's anti-SLAPP legislation.

Chilling effect
The majority opinion overturned the BCCA's analysis on the chilling effect of anti-SLAPP legislation. It clarified that the chilling effect is not meant to address and that it can only militate towards dismissing a defamation case.

Harm analysis
The majority decision noted that the harm that Neufeld suffered was limited since he was able to continue expressing his views on the issue and was even re-elected to another term on the school board during the course of the lawsuit before his eventual defeat in 2022.

“[t]he closer the expression lies to the core values of [freedom of expression], including truth-seeking, participating in political decision-making and diversity in the forms of self-fulfillment and human flourishing, ‘the greater the public interest in protecting it’”

Dissent
In dissent, Justice Suzanne Côté wrote that Neufeld's action should not be dismissed at this stage in the process and that he deserved to have his case heard. She clarified that she was not prejudging the underlying merits of the case.