In his
July 12 decision, [Justice] Milman said Rebel News could be seen as reporting in the public interest as Simpson has made herself a public figure.
"I am satisfied that some members of the public would have a genuine interest in knowing about those things, if true, inasmuch as they can fairly be said to 'affect the welfare of citizens,'" he said.
"In addition, Ms. Simpson has deliberately courted public notoriety and controversy through her online activism and otherwise," he said. "It follows that her public conduct can fairly be said to be matters "to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached."
In her notice of civil claim, Simpson said she had a "valued and unblemished reputation in the Province of British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada and throughout the world" before Rebel News reported on her.
Milman disagreed.
"Contrary to Ms. Simpson's pleading in the [claim], however, her reputation was not previously 'unblemished,'" the judge wrote.
He said Rebel News gave evidence Simpson was already the target of extensive adverse publicity from other sources, even before Rebel News began reporting about her.
"Rebel News was only one of many voices conveying a similar message," Milman said.
Moreover, the judge said, "the invective directed by Rebel News at Ms. Simpson was often matched by that directed by her at Rebel News and others through her own social media posts. That is the nature of the arena in which she has chosen to engage. She has also resorted to litigation, or threats of litigation, including defamation suits such as this one, in an effort to stifle criticism."
