The request of the two women, who wanted the action launched against them to be considered as a SLAPP, was rejected by the Court of Appeal. The eight-page judgment was delivered on Friday by Judge Mark Schrager.
Mrs. Snyder and Mrs. McQuade had first addressed the Superior Court of Quebec to have it immediately stop the proceedings. Judge Yves Poirier had however declined their request on January 25, judging that the request had no no reasonable chance of success
.
Alleging errors of law, Ms. Snyder and Ms. McQuade then asked the Quebec Court of Appeal for permission to appeal this judgment. They were dismissed on Friday, Judge Schrager having ruled that there was no no reviewable errors as such
.
This means that Gilbert Rozon’s defamation suit can be heard on the merits.
Just for Laughs founder criticizes Julie Snyder and Penelope McQuade for claiming on the show The week of 4 Julie of September 29, 2020 that he had made non-consensual sexual acts towards them – allegations that the principal concerned vehemently denies.
The segment had aired days before the start of the criminal trial of the businessman, who was at the time accused of sexually assaulting another woman, Annick Charette, in 1980. He was finally acquitted in December 2020.
Arguments rejected
In their motion, Ms. Snyder and Ms. McQuade argued, among other things, that the pursuit of Gibert Rozon was intended to primary objective
from limit their freedom of expression as well as the freedom of expression “of the other alleged victims”
.
However, Judge Schrager noted in his decision thatit does not appear […] that the applicants or “the other victims” have indeed suffered a prejudice to their freedom of expression
following the filing of the lawsuit, since several lawsuits alleging sexual assault have been brought against the respondent
since.
« It is therefore difficult for me to conclude, prima facie, that the freedom of expression of the applicants or even of others is thus limited. »
In addition, the magistrate points out that it does not appear from the file either that Ms Snyder and Ms McQuade face unequal power relations, a criterion for identifying a SLAPP
. Moreover, it is not claimed by the applicants
he adds.
To convince the Court of Appeal to invalidate the Superior Court’s decision, Julie Snyder also argued that she would suffer prejudice if Gilbert Rozon’s action was heard on the merits, since she would then be questioned on a subject delicate
and that the transcription of this interrogation would risk being publicized.
On this subject, Judge Schager replies in his judgment that, […] confidentiality became a concern, certain means can be put in place to protect the interests of litigants, including Ms.Snyder”,”text”:”si […] confidentiality became a concern, certain means can be put in place to protect the interests of litigants, including Ms. Snyder”}}”>and […] confidentiality became a concern, certain means can be put in place to protect the interests of litigants, including Ms. Snyder.
I note, however, that the alleged defamatory words were uttered by her during a television broadcast; they have already been publicly released
he wrote.