The B.C. Supreme Court has dismissed a defamation claim brought by Quesnel resident Pat Morton against the Union of BC Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) over statements criticizing her distribution of a controversial book about residential schools.
In reasons released by Justice Jasmin Ahmad, the court said the case involved balancing freedom of expression with protection of reputation under British Columbia’s Protection of Public Participation Act.
The dispute arose after the UBCIC sent a letter to Quesnel’s mayor and council on April 2, 2024, objecting to the promotion of the book Grave Error: How the Media Misled Us (and the Truth about Residential Schools) and the planned attendance of contributor Frances Widdowson at a council meeting.
The letter stated that Morton, the wife of Quesnel Mayor Ron Paull, had “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.”
The UBCIC letter described the book as “extremely dangerous,” saying it encouraged readers “to question the existence of residential schools” and the treatment of students who attended them.
Morton then sued the UBCIC, alleging the statement was defamatory and caused reputational harm, emotional distress and business losses.
The UBCIC applied to have the claim dismissed under the Protection of Public Participation Act, arguing the lawsuit would suppress expression on a matter of public interest. It also argued it had valid defences, including justification, fair comment and qualified privilege.
The judge found the organization met the threshold requirement under the legislation because the statements related to a matter of public interest, citing widespread local and national attention surrounding the controversy and ongoing public discussion about residential schools and reconciliation.
The court found there were grounds to believe the UBCIC had valid defences and ruled the public interest in protecting the organization’s expression outweighed any harm Morton may have suffered.
“Ms. Morton’s defamation claim against the UBCIC must be dismissed,” the judge wrote.
Court documents said Morton worked as a tax preparer at QTAX Quality Tax Services, a business owned by her son, Kevin Christieson.
The court heard Morton purchased 13 copies of the book between January and March 2024. According to the decision, she gave one copy to a client through the QTax office, donated one to a school district library with the inscription “CHILDREN NEED TO BE TAUGHT THE TRUTH!” offered one to a local MLA and distributed the remaining books to friends and family.
The ruling described significant public reaction following a March 19, 2024, Quesnel city council meeting, where council discussed a letter from the Lhtako Dene Nation concerning the book’s distribution.
During that meeting, Mayor Paull confirmed his wife possessed the book and, when asked whether he agreed with her actions, responded “no.” Council later unanimously passed a motion denouncing the book.
The decision said the controversy generated extensive online discussion and media coverage. Facebook posts by councillors, local residents and QTax prompted hundreds of comments and shares, with some commenters criticizing Morton and calling for Paull’s resignation, while others defended her.
Some online commenters also said they would no longer use QTax’s services and called for a boycott of the business.
The court also noted that several organizations publicly supported the Lhtako Dene Nation’s position and condemned the book’s distribution, including the BC Assembly of First Nations, Nazko First Nation, School District 28, the North Cariboo Métis Association and the BCGEU.
According to the ruling, the UBCIC became involved after Nazko First Nation member Terrence Paul requested support from the organization ahead of an April 2 council meeting where Widdowson was expected to attend.
The decision, said UBCIC policy director Andrea Glickman, relied on information provided by Paul, whom she described as being well known to the organization and involved in his community.
“Based on their direct knowledge of Mr. Paul, there was no reason for Ms. Glickman or anyone at the UBCIC to question the veracity of the information he provided,” the judge wrote.
The court said the application was not about Morton’s right to distribute the book or express her views, but whether the public interest in protecting the UBCIC’s criticism outweighed any harm alleged by Morton.
In analyzing the defence of justification, the court said the issue was not whether the statements were literally accurate, but whether they were “substantially true.”
Morton argued it was false to say she bought “cases” of the book and distributed them to clients from QTax, maintaining she purchased 13 copies over time and only gave one copy to a client through the office.
The judge concluded Morton was not “significantly worse off” because of those differences.
“I am satisfied that the effect of both the Impugned Statement and the literally true statement is the same,” the judge wrote. “Ms. Morton bought many copies of the book and shared or distributed them, including at least one time to a client at the QTax office.”
The court also found the UBCIC had a viable fair comment defence regarding the statement that Morton acted “in blatant disregard” for the impact on residential school survivors and their families.
The judge ruled the statement was recognizable as an opinion expressed on a matter of public interest and was based on facts Morton had admitted, including purchasing and distributing multiple copies of the book.
The decision noted similar opinions were expressed publicly by social media users, organizations supporting the Lhtako Dene Nation and people attending a “Support for Truth and Reconciliation” rally and the April 2 council meeting.
The court rejected Morton’s argument that the UBCIC acted with malice by relying on unverified information from Paul.
“There is no evidence to suggest that it was unreasonable for the UBCIC to rely on the information it received from Mr. Paul,” the judge wrote.
The court also found the defence of qualified privilege applied because the UBCIC had a social and moral duty to communicate its concerns to city council and council had a corresponding interest in receiving them.
The judge also rejected Morton’s argument that the UBCIC exceeded the scope of that privilege by identifying her as the mayor’s wife.
“As the UBCIC perceived it, the fact that Ms. Morton is the mayor’s wife tied her purchase and distribution to council,” the decision said.
The court further found the UBCIC letter had not been improperly distributed beyond those with an interest in receiving it. While the letter was later reposted on Facebook by others, the judge said the UBCIC itself had only sent it to city council and the Lhtako Dene Nation and had not published it online or circulated it to media outlets.
The judge also rejected claims that the UBCIC acted with malice or reckless disregard for the truth.
In assessing harm, the court found there was no evidence Morton personally suffered business losses linked to the UBCIC letter.
The ruling noted that QTax’s reported loss of a Nazko First Nation contract occurred shortly after the March 19 council meeting, before the UBCIC letter was written.
The judge also found insufficient evidence linking Morton’s alleged emotional distress to the UBCIC letter itself, noting public criticism and controversy surrounding the book had already escalated before the letter was sent.
“Public criticism of Ms. Morton started before the UBCIC letter was written or made public,” the judge wrote.
The court concluded there was a “high public interest” in protecting the UBCIC’s expression because it related to advocacy concerning residential schools, reconciliation and Indigenous communities.
The ruling described the letter as “counter-speech” aimed at responding to what the UBCIC viewed as misinformation harmful to residential school survivors and their families.
The judge said the UBCIC’s expression also fell within Charter-protected participation in political decision-making because the letter addressed what the organization perceived as city council’s promotion of the book.
In concluding the case, the judge found Morton had incurred “negligible (if any) harm” as a result of the UBCIC letter and said the public interest strongly favoured protecting the organization’s expression.
“Even if Ms. Morton could succeed on her defamation claim against the UBCIC, this is a case in which the balancing of competing values — the freedom of expression and free debate versus the protection of reputation — favours the dismissal of her claim against the UBCIC,” the judge wrote.
The court awarded the UBCIC costs on the application and proceeding on a full indemnity basis, subject to any submissions Morton may file within 30 days opposing that order.