The Protection of Public Participation Act. https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/19003
More excerpts from https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/ca/23/02/2023BCCA0204.htm Justice Marchand’s ruling. I love it – packed chock full of information. Emphasis added by me.
 It is only the final step of the s. 4(2) assessment, however, that provides the court with the ability to assess “what is really going on” in any particular case, so as to balance those interests: Pointes at para. 81. Determining the threshold issue in isolation from the s. 4(2) analysis would deprive the court of the opportunity to do so.
 In effect, by making the application in the manner it does, DWR seeks to quash Ms. Reynolds’ right to engage in the mechanism that was designed to protect her expression from suppression prior to the full hearing of her application on its merits, and as I discuss below, in the absence of the full evidence available to her as contemplated by the PPPA. In my view, doing so defeats the very purpose for which the PPPA was enacted. That is neither “fair” nor in the “interests of justice”.
 The judge concluded that determining threshold issues under s. 4(1), primarily on the pleadings, would deprive Ms. Reynolds of “procedural rights and obligations… conferred [on her] under s. 9 of the PPPA.” These rights and obligations, include the requirement that “on an application for a dismissal order under section 4, evidence must be given by affidavit” and the right of the other party to cross-examine an affiant on their affidavit.
Leave a Reply