Executive summary: key legal and evidentiary issues

• Primerica, a financial services company, sued consumer advocate Marco Moukhaiber for defamation over social-media posts labelling it a "pyramid scheme," "cult," "scam," and "crime," among other terms.

• An interim injunction issued in July 2023 barred Moukhaiber from posting defamatory material about Primerica and any material concerning the proceedings or their participants.

• The Court found no breach of the defamatory-postings prohibition, ruling that terms like "paid assassins" and "cult" were hyperbolic or non-defamatory in context.

• Interpretation of the injunction's scope was central, with the Court concluding Primerica was not a "participant" under para 5(e) and that non-defamatory references to Primerica were permissible.

• In the 2026 decision, all refused undertakings during cross-examination of a Primerica executive were upheld as proper, on grounds of irrelevance and burden of proof.

• Moukhaiber's attempts to compel Primerica to disclose internal policies, agent identities, and investigation records were rejected as efforts to enlist the plaintiff in building the defendant's own case.

The dispute between Primerica and Moukhaiber

Primerica Inc. and its affiliated entities — Primerica Life Insurance Company, Primerica Financial Services LLC, PFSL Investments Canada Ltd., and Primerica Life Insurance Company of Canada — are financial services companies. Marco Moukhaiber is a consumer advocate who specializes in investigating and exposing what he considers financially risky multi-level-marketing (MLM) operations. In Mr. Moukhaiber's view, Primerica operates as an MLM, and he posted various social-media videos and other materials reflecting the outcome of his solo investigation into the company, using labels such as "pyramid scheme," "Crimerica," "Primericult," "criminal fraud," "scam," "con," and "cult" to describe Primerica's business practices.

The interim injunction and contempt application

On July 21, 2023, Primerica applied for and obtained an interim injunction from the Court of King's Bench of Alberta requiring Mr. Moukhaiber to remove existing videos and posts about Primerica and to refrain from publishing further material that was defamatory of Primerica, that concerned the legal proceedings, or that concerned any participant in those proceedings. In May 2024, Primerica brought an application seeking to have Mr. Moukhaiber found in civil contempt for allegedly breaching several terms of the injunction through new social-media posts made over the intervening year.

The "no defamatory postings" analysis

Primerica alleged that Mr. Moukhaiber's post-injunction references to "paid assassins," allegations of harassment and bullying, and use of the word "cult" to describe MLM businesses — including thinly veiled references to Primerica — constituted defamatory postings in violation of the order. The Court acknowledged that many of Mr. Moukhaiber's references, such as "a primal company" and "a girl named Erica … in her Prime," were unmistakably about Primerica. However, Justice Lema found that the "paid assassins" language was an obvious comedic and hyperbolic device used to describe people simply watching livestreams, not an allegation of actual danger. The allegations of harassment and tracking were similarly found to be vague, lacking specifics, and describing benign conduct such as attempting to locate someone in the context of a legal proceeding. Regarding the "cult" label, the Court reviewed multiple dictionary definitions and found that the word carries various meanings — not all disparaging — and that Primerica had not offered submissions or evidence on the particular defamatory sting of the term. The Court concluded that none of the impugned postings were defamatory or, at minimum, were not proven as such beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the applicable standard for civil contempt.

Interpretation of paragraph 5(e) and the scope of the injunction

A significant interpretive issue arose regarding whether paragraph 5(e) of the injunction — which barred material "concerning these proceedings" or "concerning any participant in these proceedings" — also prohibited Mr. Moukhaiber from making any reference to Primerica at all, not merely defamatory ones. Primerica argued it was a "participant" protected under that clause. Mr. Moukhaiber contended that paragraph 5(d) exclusively governed postings about Primerica and that reading 5(e) to cover Primerica would render 5(d) unnecessary. Justice Lema reviewed the Court's recording of the original injunction application, noting that Primerica's own counsel had stated Mr. Moukhaiber "can talk about Primerica all he wants subject to legal restraints on speech," and that the presiding justice ultimately narrowed his initial broader ruling. The Court held that Primerica was not a "participant" within the meaning of paragraph 5(e), meaning non-defamatory references to Primerica were not prohibited. The Court also discussed the potential overbreadth of orders that bar all speech about a plaintiff, citing Yu v 16 Pet Food & Supplies Inc and academic commentary, which caution that such orders risk proscribing lawful speech.

References to the proceedings and sanctions

While the Court found that many of Mr. Moukhaiber's veiled comments — about a "girl named Erica," a "rocky relationship" since the summer of 2023, meeting in Canada to "sit across the table" — would be understood by a reasonable onlooker as references to the Primerica litigation, Justice Lema noted these were largely neutral reflections of the existence of the litigation. They showed no disdain for the court process, no disrespect toward the judiciary or lawyers, and caused no apparent prejudice to Primerica. Given the possible overbreadth of the "no references to proceedings" order and a pending review application, the Court decided to defer any sanction on this aspect until that review was resolved.

Other alleged breaches and the 2024 ruling

Primerica also alleged that Mr. Moukhaiber breached "do not post" or "take-down" provisions by failing to remove certain materials. Due to conflicting evidence on who posted the materials and whether they had been removed, the Court declined to make any contempt finding on these alleged breaches. In the result, Primerica's application for contempt findings and removal orders was dismissed, with the dismissal of the "other alleged breaches" portion being without prejudice to Primerica's right to seek such relief, and Mr. Moukhaiber's right to contest it, in future proceedings.

The 2026 endorsement on refused undertakings

In a related proceeding, Primerica sought summary judgment in the underlying defamation action while Mr. Moukhaiber applied to set aside the interim injunction. Primerica relied on an affidavit sworn by Mark Beauchamp, a US-based Primerica executive, on both applications. Mr. Moukhaiber's counsel cross-examined Mr. Beauchamp on the affidavit. During the examination, Primerica's counsel refused numerous undertaking requests, and Mr. Moukhaiber applied to compel answers. The refused undertakings sought information about the identity and disciplinary history of Primerica agents featured in Moukhaiber's videos, Primerica's internal marketing guidelines and standards, records relating to a US Better Business Bureau (Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council — DSSRC) report on exaggerated earnings claims by certain Primerica reps, publicly available financial data, and records of internal or external investigations stemming from Moukhaiber's work.

The burden of proof and relevance analysis

Justice Lema found all refusals to be proper. The Court emphasized that the burden of proving defences — whether justification, fair comment, qualified privilege, or responsible communication — lay squarely on Mr. Moukhaiber. The videos and the interview content within them originated with him, and it was not Primerica's responsibility to fill the gaps in his investigation. On justification, the Court examined conflicting case law on whether allegations of criminality can only be defended by proof of criminal convictions (as per Hall v Kyburz and West Edmonton Mall Property v Proctor) or whether "substantial truth" on a balance of probabilities suffices (as per Giesbrecht v Prpick, affirmed on appeal). Under either analysis, the refused undertakings would not assist Mr. Moukhaiber: he had produced no evidence of criminal convictions, nor had he identified specific offences or pointed to pre-existing evidence supporting the elements of those offences. On fair comment, the Court found that labels such as "illegal pyramid scheme" and "fraud" were imputations of fact rather than opinion, precluding the fair-comment defence, and that information about a handful of independent contractors out of approximately 10,000 in Canada could not support characterizations of Primerica as a whole. On qualified privilege, the Court accepted that Moukhaiber could not establish the requisite special duty or reciprocal interest. On responsible communication, the Court agreed that the undertaking requests demonstrated a lack of pre-publication diligence rather than supporting it.

The ruling and costs

In the 2024 contempt decision, the Court dismissed Primerica's application, finding no breaches of the defamatory-postings prohibition, deferring any sanctions on the proceedings-references issue, and declining findings on other alleged breaches due to conflicting evidence. Costs of that application were deferred pending the outcome of Mr. Moukhaiber's review application. In the 2026 endorsement, all refused undertakings were upheld, and Primerica was awarded its Schedule C (Column 3) costs. No exact monetary amount was specified in either decision for any award to a successful party.