Court backs appeal rights in defamation case of former UBC professor Steven Galloway
Credit to Author: David Carrigg| Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 01:13:46 +0000
A woman who alleged she was sexually assaulted by former University of B.C. professor Steven Galloway has won the right to appeal a court order that she release all correspondence with former UBC boss Martha Piper.
In a B.C. Court of Appeal ruling released Tuesday, Justice Susan Griffin stated the appellant A.B. (whose name is protected by a publication ban) had the right to appeal an August 2019 Supreme Court of B.C. order that she and two other people provide information to back up their affidavits being used to defend themselves from a defamation suit being pursued by Galloway. Among that information was the Piper correspondence.
Generally, in order to appeal a court ruling, a leave of appeal is required. The Supreme Court of Canada receives around 600 leave-of-appeal applications each year, of which about 80 are successful. In this case, Galloway’s legal team said a leave of appeal was required, while A.B.’s legal team said it wasn’t.
Griffin sided with A.B., stating leave of appeal was not required. The appeal will now be heard Jan. 7, 2020, while the defamation trial is expected to begin in June 2020.
The case goes back to November 2015, when UBC stated that serious allegations had been made against Galloway, head of the creative writing department, and that he had been suspended. An investigation headed by former Supreme Court of B.C. justice Mary Ellen Boyd into the case concluded that Galloway had a consensual affair with A.B., who was one of his students. He was fired in June 2016 due to an “irreparable breach of trust.”
UBC later paid Galloway $167,000 in damages after an arbitrator found “certain communication” by the university violated Galloway’s privacy and damaged his reputation.
In October 2018 Galloway commenced action to sue 25 people whom he believed defamed him during and after his controversial firing — including two UBC professors. According to court records, Galloway alleges “that he was defamed by false allegations of rape, sexual assaults and physical assaults made by A.B., and repeated by the other defendants on the internet.”
The August 2019 court ruling explained that the defamation case involved a new law — the Protection of Public Participation Act.
The goal of the law is to protect people from lawsuits brought to silence or punish a critic — known as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPP suits. According to the new act, people accused of defamation can apply to have the claim against them dismissed and both parties are given the right to cross-examine each other about their affidavits. It also states that the court may require discovery, inspection or production of a document related to the affidavit.
In May 2019 three of the defendants — A.B., Theresa Smalec and Glynnis Kirchmeier — applied to have the defamation case dismissed under the new law. As a result, the following month counsel for Galloway cross-examined the three defendants and asked for “information and/or production of documents,” which were refused.
Subsequently, the August 2019 court ruling was that many of the documents had to be produced, and that’s what led to the appeal.
CLICK HERE to report a typo.
Is there more to this story? We’d like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. Email vantips@postmedia.com.