Lawfare

During a panel discussion on lawfare at the 2024 ''Vancouver International Security Summit'' Panelist Cynthia Alkon, law professor and director of the [[Texas A&M University]] Criminal Law, Justice & Policy Program, and instructor of the first university class on lawfare in the United States at Texas A&M Law School said, "A lot of lawyers don't know they are in a case of lawfare." Alkon went on to described the primary form of lawfare as "a state acting through corporations and lawyers to file injunctions and lawsuits against investigative reporters, researchers, and security consultants warning against various forms of contentious action covertly taken by that state against others."{{Cite web |date=2024-11-29 |title=Foreign interference networks in Canada using 'lawfare,' security summit hears |url=https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/highlights/foreign-interference-networks-in-canada-using-lawfare-security-summit-hears-9880666 |access-date=2024-12-04 |website=Vancouver Is Awesome |language=en}}

During a panel discussion on lawfare at the 2024 ''Vancouver International Security Summit'' Panelist Cynthia Alkon, law professor and director of the [[Texas A&M University]] Criminal Law, Justice & Policy Program, and instructor of the first university class on lawfare in the United States at Texas A&M Law School said, "A lot of lawyers don't know they are in a case of lawfare." Alkon went on to described the primary form of lawfare as "a state acting through corporations and lawyers to file injunctions and lawsuits against investigative reporters, researchers, and security consultants warning against various forms of contentious action covertly taken by that state against others."{{Cite web |date=2024-11-29 |title=Foreign interference networks in Canada using 'lawfare,' security summit hears |url=https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/highlights/foreign-interference-networks-in-canada-using-lawfare-security-summit-hears-9880666 |access-date=2024-12-04 |website=Vancouver Is Awesome |language=en}}

At the same 2024 Vancouver International Security Summit'','' Panelist Scott McGregor, a former military and RCMP intelligence official, cited his work as an author resulted in a defamation claim against him and his co-author, Ina Mitchell, by a group believed to be associated with the [[Chinese Communist Party|Chinese Communist Party (CCP).]] McGregor and Mitchell wrote about an unsolved 2020 murder of a Chinese National named Bo Fan. "In lawfare, there is an intention to suppress what you're saying, to deter," said McGregor, noting that the authors became a target of the CCP despite British Columbia's new law to prevent [[Strategic lawsuit against public participation|strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP)]].

At the same 2024 Vancouver International Security Summit'','' Panelist Scott McGregor, a former military and RCMP intelligence official, cited his work as an author resulted in a defamation claim against him and his co-author, Ina Mitchell, by a group believed to be associated with the [[Chinese Communist Party|Chinese Communist Party (CCP).]] McGregor and Mitchell wrote about an unsolved 2020 murder of a Chinese national named Bo Fan. "In lawfare, there is an intention to suppress what you're saying, to deter," said McGregor, noting that the authors became a target of the CCP despite British Columbia's new law to prevent [[Strategic lawsuit against public participation|strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP)]].

In a February 2026 ruling,{{Cite web |title=2026 BCSC 231 CreateAbundance International Institute Inc. v. Direct News Pvt Ltd. |url=https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/26/02/2026BCSC0231.htm |access-date=2026-03-30 |website=www.bccourts.ca}} British Columbia Supreme Court Justice David Layton explicitly characterized the defamation lawsuit against McGregor and Mitchell as lawfare designed to silence critical coverage of matters of significant public interest. Layton rejected claims of bias or malice with the journalists' work and upheld defense under British Columbia's Protection of Public Participation Act (PPPA), awarding full indemnity for legal costs, warning that such strategic litigation could chill future journalistic scrutiny despite existing anti-SLAPP safeguards.{{Cite web |last=Cooper |first=Sam |title=Canadian Court Rules Story on Bo Fan Murder and Alleged CCP Spy Links Was a Matter of Public Interest |url=https://www.thebureau.news/p/canadian-court-rules-story-on-bo |access-date=2026-03-30 |website=www.thebureau.news |language=en|author-link=Sam Cooper (journalist)}}

In a February 2026 ruling,{{Cite web |title=2026 BCSC 231 CreateAbundance International Institute Inc. v. Direct News Pvt Ltd. |url=https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/26/02/2026BCSC0231.htm |access-date=2026-03-30 |website=www.bccourts.ca}} British Columbia Supreme Court Justice David Layton explicitly characterized the defamation lawsuit against McGregor and Mitchell as lawfare designed to silence critical coverage of matters of significant public interest. Layton rejected claims of bias or malice with the journalists' work and upheld defense under British Columbia's Protection of Public Participation Act (PPPA), awarding full indemnity for legal costs, warning that such strategic litigation could chill future journalistic scrutiny despite existing anti-SLAPP safeguards.{{Cite web |last=Cooper |first=Sam |title=Canadian Court Rules Story on Bo Fan Murder and Alleged CCP Spy Links Was a Matter of Public Interest |url=https://www.thebureau.news/p/canadian-court-rules-story-on-bo |access-date=2026-03-30 |website=www.thebureau.news |language=en|author-link=Sam Cooper (journalist)}}