B.C. court rejects anti-SLAPP motion over attacks on drag performer

Case Summary

Cook v. Action4Canada Inc., 2026 BCSC 1980

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has dismissed an anti-SLAPP application brought by a conservative advocacy organization seeking to defeat a defamation lawsuit arising from publications that associated a local drag performer with the sexual exploitation of children.

In Cook v. Action4Canada Inc., 2026 BCSC 1980, Hardwick J ruled that Action4Canada could not use British Columbia's Protection of Public Participation Act (PPPA) to summarily dismiss a defamation claim brought by Tyson Cook, a certified educational assistant who performs in drag under the name "Freida Whales". The PPPA is substantively similar to Ontario's anti-SLAPP law, which is codified in section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Cook decision is noteworthy for its treatment of Rainbow Alliance Dryden v. Webster, 2023 ONSC 7050, which the B.C. court characterized as persuasive.

Rainbow Alliance is an Ontario Superior Court decision in which a similar anti-SLAPP motion was dismissed. In that case, a Facebook publisher had accused Dryden-based drag performers of "grooming" children. The plaintiffs in Rainbow Alliance, and the related case of Crichton v. Webster, later obtained summary judgment (see 2025 ONSC 1161 and 2025 ONSC 1162).

Although both motions were dismissed, the courts reached different conclusions about whether the impugned expression related to a matter of public interest at the first stage of the anti-SLAPP test.

Background

The plaintiff, Cook, works as a certified educational assistant in B.C.'s public school system. Outside his employment, he performs in drag at adult venues and all-ages events, including drag story time, where he reads to young children.

One of the defendants in Cook's claim, Action4Canada, is a Christian faith-based advocacy organization. It opposes certain 2SLGBTQIA+ educational initiatives and drag performances involving children.

In January 2023, Action4Canada published an online petition, form letter and social media posts criticizing drag story time events. The publications identified Cook, included his photograph, referred to his employment in the public school system and encouraged readers to demand that his employer reassess his suitability to work with children.

The publications also associated drag performers, including Cook, with sexual predators, sexual exploitation and crimes against children.

Cook commenced a defamation lawsuit. Action4Canada sought to have it dismissed under the PPPA, arguing that it was a SLAPP lawsuit (strategic litigation against public participation), on the basis that its publications constituted expression on matters of public interest.

The Public Interest Threshold: Distinguishing Rainbow Alliance

The most interesting aspect of Cook is the court's treatment of the initial public interest threshold under anti-SLAPP legislation.

Under both British Columbia's PPPA and Ontario's anti-SLAPP legislation, a defendant who brings an anti-SLAPP motion (or application, in B.C. nomenclature) must first establish that the proceeding arises from expression relating to a matter of public interest.

This is deliberately a low threshold. The expression need not advance the public interest or even be in the public interest. It must merely relate to a subject in which some segment of the community has a genuine interest.

In Rainbow Alliance, Nieckarz J rejected the defendant's attempt to characterize his Facebook publication as expression concerning public interest issues, including drag performances involving children and media reporting. The court found that the impugned expression was, in substance, an attack on identifiable drag performers that characterized them as child groomers and perpetuated harmful stereotypes about the 2SLGBTQIA+ community.

Her Honour found that the publication did not meaningfully engage with public policy questions. Its defamatory accusations were not transformed into public interest expression merely because they concerned individuals participating in a publicly debated activity.

The Ontario court therefore dismissed Webster's anti-SLAPP motion at the threshold stage.

In Cook, however, Hardwick J reached a different conclusion.

A material distinction was that Action4Canada's publications were not confined to allegations about Cook personally. They were part of an organized campaign directed toward identifiable public policy objectives.

For instance, Action4Canada's petition specifically opposed taxpayer funding for drag story time events in public institutions. Its accompanying form letter encouraged supporters to contact municipal officials and the local school board. The publications also raised questions about acceptable off-duty conduct for public educators and whether Cook's activities were compatible with his employment working with children.

In other words, unlike Webster's Facebook publication, Action4Canada's communications were expressly directed toward influencing public institutions and their policies. Hardwick J acknowledged that the connection between the publications and the public interest was tenuous, but nevertheless sufficient:

Further, while I accept the Impugned Statements have a rather tenuous relationship with the public interest, there is enough of a relationship that the Application should be fulsomely decided on the second part of the test under s 4 of the PPPA.

The B.C. court also considered Cook's employment in public education, his public profile as a drag performer and his online content.

These circumstances distinguished the case from Rainbow Alliance and supported the conclusion that the publications, considered as a whole, related to matters of public interest.

This distinction is significant: expression that merely attacks individuals participating in a public controversy is not necessarily equivalent to expression that substantively engages with the public policy questions underlying that controversy. Satisfying the initial public interest threshold does not mean that the expression is truthful, justified, or ultimately deserving of protection. Those questions are addressed at the subsequent stages of the anti-SLAPP analysis.

The Claim's Substantial Merit and Lack of Valid Defence

Having found that Action4Canada met the initial threshold, Hardwick J considered whether Cook had demonstrated grounds to believe that his defamation claim had substantial merit and that Action4Canada had no valid defence. (This was Cook's burden, as the anti-SLAPP test reverses the onus after the threshold question is overcome by the moving party.)

The court found that the publications conveyed a clear defamatory meaning by linking Cook to sexual misconduct, exploitation and crimes against children.

In reaching this conclusion, Hardwick J relied on Rainbow Alliance and the subsequent summary judgment decision in Crichton, which recognized the serious reputational consequences of allegations that drag performers are sexual predators or groomers.

Action4Canada advanced the defence of fair comment, arguing that its publications expressed opinions about drag story time and Cook's suitability to work with children. Action4Canada asserted that it believed Cook was “psychologically disturbed” and had “deviant adult sexual proclivities.” Hardwick J accepted that Action4Canada held these beliefs, including its belief in harmful stereotypes associating gay men and drag performers with crimes against children. However:

Even if Action4Canada asserts that they have these beliefs, I conclude that there are grounds to believe that the Impugned Statements were made with reckless disregard for the truth. I again refer to the decision in Rainbow Alliance. In Rainbow Alliance, Justice Nieckarz found that in a situation where a defendant made comments that relied on negative stereotypes around the 2SLGBTQ+ community, with a complete disregard of the actual facts relating to the people they made the comments about, there were grounds to believe that a trial judge could find that the defendant was acting with malice.

A finding of malice, alone, defeats fair comment. As a result, the court rejected the validity of the defence. Although Action4Canada was entitled to express opposition to drag performances involving children, its publications went further by implying that Cook was personally involved in sexual misconduct or criminal activity. These were allegations of fact, not merely expressions of opinion. The court found no factual basis for allegations that Cook had harmed or exploited children, or had been involved in criminal misconduct. Action4Canada had also taken no steps to verify its serious accusations.

Relying again on Rainbow Alliance, Hardwick J concluded that there were grounds to believe Action4Canada acted with malice by recklessly repeating harmful stereotypes about 2SLGBTQIA+ people without regard to Cook's individual circumstances.

The Balance of the Public Interest Favoured Cook

The court ultimately concluded that the public interest in allowing Cook's lawsuit to proceed outweighed the public interest in protecting Action4Canada's expression.

Hardwick J accepted that Cook was likely to have suffered reputational harm, lost performance opportunities, anxiety and concerns for his personal safety. The court also rejected the suggestion that Cook had commenced his lawsuit for an improper purpose or to suppress Action4Canada's political views.

Importantly, although the publications satisfied the initial public interest threshold, the court found that their expressive value was low. Hardwick J stated:

The Impugned Statements stray quite far from the core values of freedom of expression, however. They are directed at a member of a marginalized community, including reference to his employment in the public education sector, and repeat harmful stereotypes about that community. Further detracting from their freedom of expression value, the statements also provoke hostility against an identifiably vulnerable group protected by s 15 of the Charter. Overall, our society and the Charter do not place great importance on protecting expression like the Impugned Statements.

Consequently, the public interest in protecting Cook's reputation outweighed the public interest in protecting Action4Canada's expression. The application was dismissed, allowing Cook's defamation claim to proceed to trial.

Key Takeaways

1. There is an important distinction between public policy advocacy and personal attacks. The different outcomes at the threshold stage in Cook and Rainbow Alliance illustrate why the substance and context of the impugned expression matter. Action4Canada's publications expressly sought changes to public funding and institutional practices. Webster's publication, by contrast, was principally an attack on identifiable drag performers.

2. The public interest threshold remains low. Even expression containing serious, potentially defamatory allegations may satisfy the threshold where it genuinely relates to public interest issues. This does not establish that the expression deserves protection at the later stages of the test.

3. Public policy advocacy does not immunize defamatory allegations. Both decisions recognize that individuals and organizations may express opposition to drag story time or related public policies. However, that freedom does not extend to making unsupported allegations that identifiable performers are engaged in sexual misconduct or crimes against children.

4. Discriminatory stereotypes may undermine a fair comment defence. A publisher's sincerely held beliefs about the 2SLGBTQIA+ community do not excuse reckless allegations about an individual's conduct. Both decisions recognize that reliance on harmful stereotypes, without factual verification, may support a finding of malice.

5. The final public interest weighing exercise remains critical. Cook demonstrates that expression may clear the initial public interest threshold yet receive little protection when its harmful character is assessed against the reputational and personal consequences for the plaintiff.

Conclusion

Cook adds to the developing Canadian jurisprudence concerning defamatory attacks on drag performers and other members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community.

The decision offers an important factual distinction from Rainbow Alliance: publications that engage with identifiable public policy questions may satisfy the initial public interest threshold even when they also contain defamatory personal attacks. However, overcoming the public interest threshold is not sufficient to succeed on an anti-SLAPP motion where the expression otherwise targets members of a marginalized group with serious reputational harm, baseless stereotypes, and meritless allegations of criminality and child sexual abuse.

The ultimate outcome in both Cook and Rainbow Alliance was the same: the anti-SLAPP motions were dismissed. Anti-SLAPP legislation protects public participation and debate, but it does not immunize publishers from the legal consequences of making serious, unfounded allegations of criminal misconduct against identifiable individuals.

In Cook, the successful plaintiff was represented by Sarah McCalla and Thea Udwadia of Norton Rose Fulbright.

In the Rainbow Alliance anti-SLAPP motion, the successful plaintiffs were represented by Douglas W. Judson and Peter A. Howie of Judson Howie LLP and Adam Goldenberg, Ljiljana Stanic, and Leah Strand of McCarthy Tétrault LLP.

Mr. Judson and Mr. Howie represented the successful plaintiffs in the Rainbow Alliance and Crichton summary judgment motion.

For more information about our anti-SLAPP and defamation practice, please contact:

Douglas W. Judson (he/him)

Judson Howie LLP

Email: doug@judsonhowie.ca

Related reading:

• Court finds “groomer” slurs targeting drag community not protected by anti-SLAPP law — Rainbow Alliance Dryden v. Webster, 2023 ONSC 7050

• Ontario court grants summary judgment to drag performers smeared online as “groomers” — Rainbow Alliance Dryden v. Webster and Crichton v. Webster, 2025 ONSC 1161 and 1162