A B.C. Supreme Court judge has denied Surrey Animal Hospital Ltd.鈥檚 application for an interim injunction in a defamation case that would require the defendant, Victoria Veira, to delete social media posts that the clinic maintains are defamatory.

鈥淲hile I will not grant the injunction to the clinic, I want to be clear that my conclusion is not an endorsement of the merits of Ms. Veira鈥檚 case, of her particular comments, or generally of her actions,鈥� Justice John Gibb-Carsley stated in his July 28 delivered in B.C. Supreme Court in New Westminster.

None of the claims from either side of this case have yet been proven or disproven in a court of law. The case has not yet gone to trial. The clinic wanted the posts 鈥� some of which have been viewed almost one million times 鈥� removed until the trial.

Gibb-Carsley said that 鈥済iven the fundamental importance of freedom of speech in Canada, an interlocutory injunction that stifles expression will only be granted in exceptional circumstances and in the clearest of cases. Thus, in determining this application, I must balance the harm suffered by the plaintiff against Ms. Veira鈥檚 freedom of expression, in advance of the merits of the case being decided.鈥�

The veterinary hospital filed its civil claim in August 2022 against Veira seeking general, special, aggravated and punitive damages against her, an interlocutory and permanent injunction to restrain her from further publication of what it claims to be defamatory statements made on social media, and a court order requiring her to permanently remove the statements.

The case stems from Veira attending the clinic in Newton in March to get her dog neutered, and subsequent visits. According to the notice of civil claim, she then posted a series of videos on TikTok that led to this lawsuit. The claim, filed in B.C. Supreme Court in New Westminster, states one of the videos had been viewed more than 800,000 times. The allegedly defamatory statements, which Surrey Animal Hospital states are also 鈥渇alse鈥� and 鈥渕alicious,鈥� were according to the plaintiff disseminated over the internet from April 2, 2022 to June 26, 2022.

Veira filed a response to the civil claim in October 2022, claiming the videos she posted to TikTok are not defamatory because statements she made about the veterinary hospital 鈥渁re substantially true or are the reasonably-held opinion of Ms. Veira.鈥� Her response also states she 鈥渄enies maliciously posting any videos to TikTok with the knowledge that, or reckless indifference as to whether, the videos contained false information鈥� and that she 鈥渄enies seeking to damage鈥� Surrey Animal Hospital 鈥渋n any way.鈥�

Gibb-Carsley found, based on the facts before him, that 鈥渟tifling Ms. Veira鈥檚 freedom of speech is not justified on this application.

鈥淭he plaintiff has failed to meet the high threshold to obtain an injunction against Ms. Veira,鈥� he decided. 鈥淭he Posts do not rise to the standard of the rarest and clearest cases that justify interim injunctions of this sort鈥攊.e., speech that is manifestly defamatory and impossible to defend. The plaintiff鈥檚 application for an injunction is therefore dismissed.鈥�

tom.zytaruk@surreynowleader.com
Like us on Follow us on   and follow Tom on