Weaver V. Corcoran: A Defamation Case In British Columbia.pdf

## Weaver v. Corcoran: Summary

Case Background:

This case involves a libel suit brought by Dr. Andrew Weaver against Terence Corcoran, Peter Foster, Kevin Libin, Gordon Fisher (publisher of the National Post), and the National Post itself. Dr. Weaver alleges that four articles published in the National Post between late 2009 and early 2010 defamed his character.

Key Issues:

The core dispute revolves around:

Defamation: Were the statements in the articles defamatory?
"Of and Concerning": Do the statements refer to Dr. Weaver?
Fair Comment: Are the statements protected by the defence of fair comment?
Republishing: Are the defendants liable for republishing or sharing the articles online?
Reader Postings: Are the defendants responsible for user-generated comments posted in response to the articles?
Damages: What damages, if any, should Dr. Weaver be awarded?

Article Content and Alleged Defamation:

The articles, written by Foster, Corcoran, and Libin, question Dr. Weaver's integrity and scientific methods regarding his involvement with "Climategate" (a scandal involving leaked emails from climate scientists). Specific allegations include:

Theft Accusations: Dr. Weaver was accused of falsely claiming that his office break-ins and hacking attempts were funded by the fossil fuel industry.
Untrustworthiness: The articles imply Dr. Weaver is unscientific, incompetent, and distorts data to promote a political agenda.
Climate Change Denial: The articles suggest Dr. Weaver is part of a conspiracy to downplay climate change.

Defendants' Arguments:

The defendants argue:

The statements are not defamatory as they do not directly attack Dr. Weaver's character.
The statements are "fair comment" on matters of public interest (the debate over climate change).
They are not responsible for reader comments posted online.
They did not republish the articles maliciously or with knowledge of their falsity.

Key Evidence and Considerations:

The case involved extensive evidence regarding:

The scientific basis for Dr. Weaver's research and claims.
The context and origins of the "Climategate" emails.
The intent behind the articles' language and implications.

Judgment:

The Court (Honourable Madam Justice Burke) will ultimately determine whether the statements are defamatory, if they apply to Dr. Weaver, and assess damages if liability is established.