Canadian Frontline Nurses vs. Canadian Nurses Association Notes

Exploring strategic lawsuits against public participation in relation to core issues in new media.
Focus on public participation on matters of public interest in a free and democratic society.
Conflicts that arise when individuals/organizations engage in expression on contentious public matters.

Introduces another aspect of the common law of defamation.
Focus on new media and everyday lived experience of communication.
Limits and possibilities of expressing opinions on matters of public interest in a free and democratic society.
Offers insight into Ontario's fast-track process under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (similar legislation in other provinces).
Section 137.1's purpose: prevent proceedings that limit freedom of expression on matters of public interest.

Exploration of court documents, specifically the statement of defense of Together News and John Doe.
Opportunity to develop a better understanding of the common law of defamation.
Exploring prevention of proceedings that limit freedom of expression on matters of public interest (section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act).
Philosophical exploration: balancing freedom of expression and protecting individual reputation.

Plaintiffs: Canadian Frontline Nurses (CFN) and associated individuals.
Defendants: Canadian Nurses Association, Together News Inc. (TNI), and John Doe (William Horder).
Statement of defense focuses on Together News Inc. (TNI) and John Doe.

TNI and John Doe admit allegations in paragraphs 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the statement of claim.
They claim no knowledge or insufficient knowledge regarding allegations in paragraphs 2, 4, 5, and 6.

Defendant Together News Inc. (TNI):
- A corporation incorporated under the laws of British Columbia.
- A media organization.
- Operates websites, implicating digital and social media.
Defendant John Doe (William Horder):
- Editor of websites operated by TNI.
- Writer of the article published on comoxvalley.news on September 11 titled "Quack Quack: These provirus nurses have dangerous ideas."
Plaintiff Canadian Frontline Nurses:
- A federal corporation with a registered office located in Mississauga.
Individual Plaintiffs:
- Plaintiff Sarah Shijunian:
  - Resides in Mississauga, director of Canadian frontline nurses.
  - Statements made, including:
    - "Canadian COVID-19 vaccines are experimental and unsafe."
    - "COVID-19 vaccines cause dementia and kill vaccine recipients."
    - "COVID-19 vaccines cannot be called vaccines because they are, in fact, gene therapy."
- Plaintiff Nagel:
  - Statements made, including:
    - "There is no evidence to support public health mandates, including masking, social distancing, etc."
    - "Viruses are not contagious."

The COVID-19 pandemic is the factual background within which these publication activities took place.
Context for protests organized by frontline nurses.

September 1, 2021: Protests held outside hospitals across Canada.
- Protests in Vancouver, Kamloops, London, Toronto, Ottawa, etc.
- Some nurses participated in these protests opposing pandemic measures.
- Canadian Frontline Nurses reported as organizers of some protests.
Media Coverage:
- Mainstream media and social media reported anti-science, anti-mask, and anti-vaccination statements.
- Reports of protesters harassing health care workers and inhibiting hospital access.
- Extensive reporting across the country by major Canadian news organizations.
Canadian Nurses Association Statement:
- Statement published by the Canadian Nurses Association.
Together News Inc. Article:
- September 11, 2021: TNI published article "Quack Quack: These provirus nurses have dangerous ideas" on comoxvalley.news website.

Importance of social media and digital news platforms in disseminating potentially defamatory statements.
Ability to repeat and disseminate statements and ideas has almost unlimited potential.
TNI reported that legitimate nursing organizations condemned the COVID-19 related statements and actions of the plaintiffs.

Under section 137.1, plaintiffs must demonstrate that the defendants have no valid defense.
Defendants' statement of defense:
- Defense of fair comment: Asserting opinions were fair comment made in good faith without malice on matters of public interest.
  - Opinions were based on fact and recognizable as comment.
  - Opinions were ones a reasonable person could honestly hold.
- Defense of responsible communication on matters of public interest:
  - The words complained of constitute responsible communication on a matter of public interest.
- Defense of truth or justification:
  - Pleading that the following are true facts:
    - Protests took place outside hospitals in various Canadian cities in September 2021.
    - Plaintiffs organized and participated in the protests.
    - Mainstream media and social media reported a nurse was spat on by protesters.
    - Some patients were denied access to hospital appointments due to protests.
    - Plaintiffs communicated anti-public health disinformation on social media accounts.
    - Plaintiff Nagel's statements on her blog/Facebook posts regarding rabies, polio, Spanish Flu, etc.
- Defendants acted in good faith and deny all allegations of malice in publishing the TNI article.

Defendants deny the plaintiffs suffered any damages caused by the TNI article and put the plaintiffs to strict proof.
If damages were suffered, they are too remote, excessive, exaggerated, and not recoverable at law.
Damages are a direct result of the plaintiffs' own conduct and dissemination of anti-vaccine, anti-mask, and anti-science statements.
If reputations were damaged, it was due to other causes, not the TNI article.

The t and I defendants plead and rely upon the libel and slander act, RSO (revised statutes of Ontario) as amended.
TNI defendants plead and rely upon section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, as amended in 2015 by the Protection of Public Participation Act in Ontario.
The action is a strategic lawsuit against public participation intended to draw attention to the plaintiff's opposition to pandemic measures.
Defendants request the action be dismissed with costs against the plaintiffs on a substantial indemnity basis.

Framework to protect public participation is a mechanism in place.
A fast-track process to dismiss proceedings when they limit freedom of expression on matters of public interest.
Challenges faced in a free and democratic society to engage in expression on matters of public interest.
Confrontation that can occur when litigation is used to quash or restrict individuals engaging in freedom of expression on matters of public interest.