This past Wednesday, the Vancouver and Burnaby Crisis Pregnancy Centres (“Vancouver CPCs”) announced that they would not appeal the decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court dismissing their defamation suit against Joyce Arthur and the Pro-Choice Action Network (“Pro-CAN”). In 2009, Arthur wrote a report for the Pro-CAN with the express goal of exposing “the anti-woman and anti-feminist agenda of CPCs”. The report, Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia (the “Report”), which was funded using federal taxpayer dollars was released and concluded that CPCs use unethical methods to mislead, deceive and hurt women and convert them to Christianity. The Vancouver CPCs denied the allegations set out in the Report and disputed its accuracy and reflection of them.

Crisis pregnancies happen and when they do, they are, well, a crisis. Regardless of where you stand on abortion, the vast majority of people acknowledge that the decision to have an abortion or carry a pregnancy to term is not taken lightly. Because of the complex and sensitive nature of the decision women should be given the opportunity to consider and discuss their options, should they want to. That’s where CPCs step in. CPCs do not provide abortions or refer women to abortionists. In my experience, and I have sat on the board of a local CPC, CPCs do not hide the fact that a referral for an abortion is not an available service. What they do offer is information on pregnancy options, including adoption, abortion and keeping the child; counseling for pregnant and post-abortive women and men; childbirth classes; doula services and the provision of maternity and baby-related items such as clothes, bottles and strollers. Most CPC clients are, with the exception perhaps of the pro-choice “undercover clients” on a mission to “expose” a particular CPC, happy with the counseling and information they received from a CPC, regardless of whether or not they end up having an abortion.

In her Report however, Arthur does not address the good that CPCs do or the fact that their clients are generally satisfied with their services. Instead, she makes outlandish allegations and generalization, basing them in part on the say-so of someone who admittedly, lied and deceived people she interacted with to “expose” them. Among Arthur’s allegations were that CPCs provide inaccurate information, use graphic imagery and mislead clients into thinking that the CPC was a medical clinic. The Vancouver CPCs however, as with most CPCs, do not employ such tactics. Worried that their reputation was being tarnished, the Vancouver CPCs sued Arthur and the Pro-CAN for defamation alleging that specific portions of the Report were defamatory to the Vancouver CPCs.

In Court, Arthur and the Pro-CAN argued that although the Report did reference the Vancouver CPCs and one of their executive directors, that the portion of the Report alleged to be defamatory was not talking about the Vancouver CPCs specifically. In fact, Arthur and Pro-CAN argued that this section of the Report talked about CPCs across North America. This is an important legal question because in order for the Report to be considered defamatory, there needs to be a target of the defamation. The Vancouver CPCs argued that they were the targets because they were specifically referred to in an appendix and because the Report as a whole was about CPCs in British Columbia, where they both operate. If, however, that section of the Report was found to be about CPCs in North America, of which there are approximately 4,200, then the sample is simply too large for any reasonable person to suspect that the Report is speaking about the Vancouver CPCs.

It’s a clever argument that has been used in many defamation cases in the past and unfortunately, it was successful in this case. Somehow, the Court found that the impugned statements in the Report, despite the fact that the Report was entitled Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia, that it had “Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia” at the top of each page and despite the fact that it attached an appendix listing all of the CPCs in British Columbia, including the Vancouver CPCs and the name of one of their executive director, were not referring to CPCs in British Columbia, but rather, of CPCs in North America generally.

While it’s true that some of the allegations in the Report are prefaced with words like “most CPCs” and “the majority of CPCs”, I do not see how, given the above-noted facts, anyone could conclude anything other than that the allegations contained in the Report apply to at least CPCs in British Columbia, which include the Vancouver CPCs. Although this decision appears, at first, to be a loss, we need to see and appreciate that it is not. The Vancouver CPCs sued Arthur and the Pro-CAN because the allegations in the Report did not accurately reflect the way they operate. The Vancouver CPCs lost their case, not because the contents of the Report were true, but because the Court found that the impugned statements in the Report were not about them. That means the Vancouver CPCs were vindicated.

There are very basic and straightforward defenses to defamation. These include that the impugned statements were true, made in good faith with the reasonable belief that they were true or were personal opinion. As a lawyer, if I had a client seek my advice after being sued for making defamatory statements of fact, the first question I would ask is if the statements were true. If they were, that’s how we would defend the claim. If the statements turned out not to be true, then the next question I would ask is whether the person knew that the statements were true when they were making them. If so, then this, “good faith” would be our second possible defence.

It’s only if and when I conclude that these straightforward defenses are not available that I would start to look at other possible defenses like, the comments were not about the Vancouver CPCs specifically, but rather, CPCs in North America generally. Again, Arthur and the Pro-CAN’s argument is a clever one that has been used before, but it’s not, at least in my opinion, the easiest, simplest or strongest argument to a defamation suit. If you read Arthur and the Pro-CAN’s written arguments, which I have done, you see that Arthur and the Pro-CAN do not spend their efforts arguing that the contents of the Report were being true and accurate. Rather, they focussed on this weak and last resort argument about who the impugned statements in the Report were targeting. Lawyers need to advance the best possible argument for their clients. This leads me to believe that the ‘truth’ argument was not, in this case, the best argument for Arthur and the Pro-CAN.

I don’t want to speak for Ms. Arthur and the Pro-CAN, but it is my opinion that they made this argument because it was the only one available, meaning that they knew that the contents of the Report were not true or were not wholly true. And that’s why we need to look at this decision as a victory. Defamation cases are fact-centred and fact-specific and so there is no great precedent set by this decision. There is nothing in here to be relied on by the Courts in the future to limit what CPCs or pro-lifers can or cannot do. What does come out of this decision however, is the following:

• The impugned allegations in the Report were not about the Vancouver CPCs; and,
• The impugned allegations in the Report were not proven to be true and accurate.

I would chalk that up to a victory any day of the week.

Albertos Polizogopoulos is a Partner with the firm Vincent Dagenais Gibson LLP/s.r.l. in Ottawa, Ontario. He regularly appears before courts and appellate courts including the Supreme Court of Canada to advocate for his clients’ rights to freedom of religion, freedom of expression and parental authority. He also frequently appears in media interviews and on panels to discuss constitutional law. @CharterLaw

You can read the entire piece here, but we include this quote from Ms. Sonier:

“This report is hugely damaging to CPCs in B.C., as well as the rest of Canada. I understand why the CPCs are not pursuing the suit further. Given how unspecific Arthur was in her allegations, an appeal of the decision would be a tough, uphill and costly legal battle. I like that the CPCs will issue a rebuttal of Arthur’s allegations. This is a reasoned response to a near impossible situation.

But I’m still frustrated. I’m frustrated that a poorly crafted, government funded report will tarnish the reputation of Canadian CPCs. Unlike Arthur’s shoddy research, CPCs are funded not by tax-payers but by private donors so centres can offer free services and resources to women and families facing unplanned or crisis pregnancies.”

Ms. Sonier encourages the reader to send a note of encouragement to your local crisis pregnancy centre and we do the same. For the contact information for the centre nearest you click here.

Charity golf tournaments are occasions for wholesome fun and last Saturday’s tournament was no different. Although the skies had a lot less blue than we had hoped for, as John and I headed over the mighty Fraser River to the picturesque landscape along the foot of the majestic Coastal Mountains we were not going to be deterred. The proceeds of this charity golf tournament were going to support the Crisis Pregnancy Centres of Vancouver and Burnaby (the ‘Centres’) and a few drops of rain were not going to stop us from contributing to their efforts.

In the weeks and days leading up to Saturday’s event John and I had been busy soliciting funds in an attempt to meet both our personal and team goals. Even with the means of modern technology and communication this involves some effort. Thankfully, on the evening prior to the event, we surpassed our goal of raising $4000.00!

Truth be told, I had to push myself out the door at 6:30 that dark and dreary Saturday morning. Especially after just being home for two days following a weeklong trip through Alberta. But those thoughts quickly disappeared when Brian Norton offered me a rambunctious greeting upon my arrival at the Golden Eagles Golf Course. Brian is the Executive Director of the Centres and his infectious smile and enthusiasm rival that of a young child coming down the stairs on Christmas morning.

Day after day, Brian toils selflessly in his capacity as Executive Director. He exemplifies what it is to have a servant heart and is always setting aside his own desires to do what is best for others. Brian’s character is mirrored in the mission of the Centres. Their mission is to provide compassionate help to women experiencing unplanned pregnancies, post abortion grief, domestic violence, and sexual assault. They are on the frontlines of assisting some of the most vulnerable people in society and regularly help women make informed choices that set them on the path to a better life.

You would think that the work of the Centres (much of which is done by volunteers) would be appreciated and valued by everyone, but that is not the case. As I wrote a few weeks ago, Joyce Arthur and her pro-abortion friends can’t stand the fact that some women may choose for life after being assisted by staff and peer counsellors at the Centres. Ms. Arthur has openly stated that she has her sights set on crisis pregnancy centres in order to expose their religious foundations and “deceitful tactics”. In a 65-page document titled, Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres (CPCs) in British Columbia she asserts that crisis pregnancy centres were “using graphic videos and pictures to shock and horrify young women about abortion” and that “CPCs won’t say up front they are religious and will lie about being religiously-affiliated to get a woman into the centre”. In view of this document being public and possibly affecting how the Centres were viewed by British Columbians, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed against Ms. Arthur on October 12, 2012 alleging defamation. Last month a judge decided to dismiss the lawsuit and today the Crisis Pregnancy Centres of Vancouver and Burnaby issued a press release saying they won’t appeal the ruling.

In spite of the unjust attacks they will undoubtedly continue to receive from Ms. Arthur, Brian Norton is resolved to continue serving women in their time of need. He says, “Notwithstanding what an activist with a stated political agenda against CPCs may allege, we think the opinion that counts is the opinion of our clients.” Norton then lists just a few comments left by clients on their ‘exit forms’:

• “Thanks for listening to me and giving me a way to solve my troubles.”
• “I have no words to say how thankful I am for all your love, help and support.”
• “It was really good to know there is someone to support me and listen to me.”
• “Wonderful people in your [charity]. Words cannot describe all the appreciation I feel so deep inside.”

Norton also shares sentiments left by their most recent clients who came seeking help for their post abortion grief issues:

• “I found a peaceful, supportive, safe and loving environment.”
• “I felt very loved and accepted.”
• “Great healing took place in unexpected ways.”
• “Very caring, loving.  A safe place.”

“Women facing crisis pregnancies or experiencing problems following an abortion,” concludes Norton, “can have confidence that our Centres adhere to the highest standards of counselling ethics and provide accurate information and non-judgmental help.”

This is exactly the attitude one needs when faced with the aggressive tactics of those who celebrate abortion!

Never again will I feel bad about getting out of my warm bed on a cold, rainy morning to do my miniscule part in ensuring they have the financial means to carry out their mission. It is my prayer that Brian and all those who labour with him for the good of others will do so with steadfast resolve!

The Christian Advocacy Society of Greater Vancouver (I’m not sure how much more up front about religious affiliation you can be) and the Crisis Pregnancy Centre of Vancouver Society filed a Notice of Civil Claim on October 12, 2012 alleging defamation against Ms. Arthur and the Pro-Choice Action Network on the basis that the above mentioned assertions, and other serious allegations, were false. One of the main purposes of these organizations is to provide care for women with unplanned pregnancies.

The ruling is being viewed as a victory for Ms. Arthur and undoubtedly she will continue to wage war against those who work toward minimizing the number of abortions in Canada. Indeed, only a few days after her victory, Ms. Arthur began calling for the British Columbia government to regulate CPCs. She is quoted in a Straight.com article stating that CPCs are “scaring” women and “handing out misinformation”.

Ms. Arthur’s new media statements are contrary to her own lawyer’s position in written and oral submissions to the court – accepted by the judge – that the CPCs defamation case should be dismissed because the allegations in her report were NOT about BC CPCs.

Further, nearly all CPCs in Canada are members of the Canadian Association of Pregnancy Support Services and are subject to the highest standard of counselling ethics, as well as Canada Revenue Agency guidelines pertaining to political activity.

Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in North America, consistently cites the second most common reason women seek abortion as an inability to afford the costs associated with raising a child. At a crisis pregnancy centre, trained counsellors come alongside such women and in a pastoral manner are able to seek ways in which economic barriers can be overcome. (Having been at  a few of their fundraising events, I can attest to their prudent use of resources for this purpose.) The end result could be that a previously distraught woman (who may well have thought her only choice was abortion) is able to consider another choice that was, in her mind, previously unavailable to her and can carry on with the pregnancy in confident expectation of childbirth. What callous person would be opposed to giving a woman this choice? Who could be opposed to such compassion and human kindness?

A large majority of Canadians are not comfortable with the high rate of abortions and the truth is that CPCs play an important role in minimizing the perceived need for a woman to terminate her pregnancy. They are on the frontlines of assisting those who need help.

Rather than taking the approach of Ms. Arthur by impeding a woman’s right to choose life for her pre-born child, we should be doing all we can to ensure they have the means to carry out this important work of providing alternative and viable choices for women.