A SLAPP-happy new (draft) BC Societies Act
By Sara Golling
So, you think the federal Bill C-51 is bad? It is. And here comes the DRAFT new BC Societies Act, provincial legislation with provisions that will make life even worse for any society that speaks up about anything. If this draft Act is made law, Sections 98 and 99 will enable any person to bring legal action against a society on the basis that it is acting against an undefined “public interest,” or an act or “threatened” act is or would be “prejudicial” to the person (or corporation; remember, at law a corporation is a “person.”) That’s a clear invitation by our provincial government for corporations to SLAPP societies who speak up about their activities. Or who might speak up, or might stage a demonstration. Think about Jumbo.
What’s “SLAPP”? In case you’ve forgotten, a “SLAPP” is a “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” It is a lawsuit which, though unlikely to succeed in court, will still succeed in shutting up outspoken critics of corporate misdeeds who cannot afford the high legal fees and court costs to go to court and have the case heard. (Have you been in court lately — without legal aid? It’s VERY expensive. Think in terms of tens of thousands of dollars.) A SLAPP abuses economic power for the purpose of silencing public discussion and advocacy about the activities of — usually — corporations.
Back in 2001, BC enacted legislation to discourage SLAPPs — but it was repealed shortly afterwards. The BC Civil Liberties Union published an article on January 12, 2015, on the need for anti-SLAPP legislation, saying that SLAPPs “represent a real and present danger to the exercise of free expression in this province of British Columbia, and across Canada.” The article goes on to say, “numerous citizens and organisations alike in this province have been harassed, intimidated and litigated into silence by stronger parties with spurious – and in some cases outrageous – causes of action. Many of these suits bear the telltale signs of a SLAPP. The pervasiveness of SLAPPs is difficult to measure, because most will achieve their goals of silencing criticism long before they ever get before a judge. These suits fly beneath the radar of public consciousness, escaping the notice of judicial reporters and media generally, but have a profound censoring effect.”
But instead of acting to protect free exchange of information and public discussion of important issues, BC has released its white paper on the draft new Societies Act, with its new sections 98 and 99, which explicitly enable SLAPPs.
In the white paper, the discussion on these sections completely fails to acknowledge their obvious effect.
It is particularly pernicious to invite lawsuits against societies, which are well-known for lacking financial resources. Societies that engage in activities such as providing services to the homeless, or sheltering battered women and their children, or counselling — are generally at least partially funded by government agencies and are well-governed and well-overseen.
Societies formed for the purpose of advocating for a healthy environment, on the other hand, can frequently be accused of activities critical of and therefore “prejudicial” to the interests of corporations — whose profit-seeking requires them to wreak havoc on the earth’s life-support systems in return for yet more money in the pockets of their CEOs and shareholders. Yes, societies looking out for the public interest — a healthy environment — would probably succeed in court, if they had the money to hire a good lawyer and go to court in the first place.
There already seem to be adequate protections for corporations from an unruly citizenry; else Enbridge would not have been able to obtain its injunctions (zealously enforced by the RCMP) against protestors on Burnaby Mountain who were objecting to Enbridge’s work in their park.
“Board Voice,” a BC organization formed to provide “a clear and effective voice for volunteer community-based boards supporting high quality social services and strong vibrant communities,” had sent a “call to action” to its 70 member organizations, urging everyone to express their concerns about Sections 98 and 99 of the draft Societies Act to their MLAs. “Non-profits are the glue that binds the social fabric of BC together, and section 99 threatens to unravel it. Meet, call, write!” urges Board Voice.
You don’t have to be a member or director of a registered society to be outraged about the proposed sections 98 and 99. Just a member of society.
Comments