Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dr. Masjoody filed a defamation claim for $11 million over an article discussing his prior litigation with SFU.

• The BC Supreme Court found the article was protected by defences including fair comment and responsible communication.

• Masjoody's conduct during litigation included repeated, unsupported allegations of judicial bias and conspiracy.

• He pursued multiple overlapping lawsuits and appeals despite prior dismissals and judicial warnings.

• The Court of Appeal found a clear pattern of vexatious and abusive litigation behavior across several proceedings.

• A broad vexatious litigant order was imposed, barring him from filing new appeals without leave.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background of the dispute

Dr. Masood Masjoody, a former SFU instructor, filed a civil defamation lawsuit in 2022 against Burnaby Beacon, a local news outlet, and journalist Dustin Godfrey. The lawsuit was based on an article titled “Judge halts ex-instructor’s harassment campaign against his former SFU colleagues”, which summarized a prior court ruling involving Dr. Masjoody’s failed legal claims against Simon Fraser University and a colleague. Masjoody sought injunctive relief and $11 million in damages, asserting that the article falsely portrayed him and damaged his reputation.

Supreme Court ruling and appeals

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in its 2024 decision (Masjoody v. Beacon, 2024 BCSC 1983), dismissed the claim. Justice Ball found the article fell squarely within accepted legal defences: it was based on accurate reporting of judicial proceedings (privilege), expressed fair comment, was justifiable in parts, and met the standard for responsible communication on matters of public interest. During that hearing, Masjoody attempted to present arguments alleging the Court of Appeal had falsified decisions against him, prompting the judge to cut off his submissions and issue warnings about vexatious conduct.

Masjoody appealed the dismissal. In Masjoody v. Burnaby Beacon, 2025 BCCA 170, the Court of Appeal was asked not only to review that decision but also to determine whether he should be declared a vexatious litigant under s. 22(1) of the Court of Appeal Act.

Pattern of abusive litigation

Justice Butler, presiding in chambers, delivered an exhaustive summary of Dr. Masjoody’s litigation history. Since 2020, he had launched at least seven civil lawsuits and eight appeals, many of which stemmed from the same allegations against SFU, various academics, media figures, and even judges. The court identified conduct such as recycling claims already adjudicated, filing overlapping appeals, making inflammatory and unsupported allegations against judges and registry staff, and posting public accusations on social media.

Dr. Masjoody had also been previously sanctioned with special costs in separate proceedings due to similar behavior, and he failed to pay costs orders issued against him. Notably, his litigation strategies often included trying to disqualify judges and reframe prior rulings as conspiracies tied to political or ethnic motivations, with no credible evidence.

Court of Appeal decision

The Court found that his actions met all the hallmarks of vexatious litigation as defined in prior case law. His attempts to re-litigate settled issues, use the courts to advance conspiratorial theories, and impugn judicial integrity justified the extraordinary remedy. Justice Butler emphasized that prior warnings and procedural sanctions had not deterred Dr. Masjoody from continuing abusive practices.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal imposed a broad vexatious litigant order, prohibiting Dr. Masjoody from bringing or continuing any appeal without leave of the Court. The appeal from the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the defamation claim was referred to a division of the Court for dismissal, effectively ending the litigation. Costs were discussed in the broader context of unpaid past awards, although no specific new costs figure was set out in this ruling.