Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Reynolds sought dismissal of a counterclaim under the PPPA, arguing it was a SLAPP suit intended to chill her expression.

• The court partially granted the PPPA application, dismissing claims related to dissemination of drone footage and punitive damages.

• A companion application for damages under section 8 of the PPPA was dismissed due to lack of bad faith evidence.

• DWR’s procedural strategy, including a failed declaration application and an appeal, prolonged the litigation.

• The registrar found Reynolds’ legal fees and related applications were reasonable and integral to the PPPA application.

• Reynolds was awarded $165,107.53 in legal costs, representing 2/3 of her full indemnity under the PPPA.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and procedural history
Mary Reynolds filed a civil action against Deep Water Recovery Ltd. (DWR), its director Mark Jurisich, and unnamed DWR employees. The dispute arose from Reynolds’ public criticism of DWR’s shipbreaking operations near her home in Union Bay, British Columbia. She photographed and filmed the operations, sometimes using a drone, and posted the material online. In June 2022, Reynolds sued for conversion, harassment, assault, intimidation, and property damage.

DWR denied the allegations and filed a counterclaim asserting that Reynolds’ conduct, including use of a drone, amounted to trespass, nuisance, and invasion of privacy. In August 2022, Reynolds applied under section 4 of the Protection of Public Participation Act (PPPA) to dismiss the counterclaim, alleging it was a SLAPP suit intended to silence her participation in public discourse.

DWR then filed a separate application seeking a declaration that the PPPA did not apply to the counterclaim. Justice Ahmad dismissed that declaration application in April 2023, calling it inconsistent with the PPPA’s purpose. DWR’s appeal and request for a stay were also rejected by the Court of Appeal. The procedural dispute led to multiple applications concerning scheduling and cross-examinations, extending the litigation significantly.

PPPA dismissal application and related rulings
Justice Morley heard Reynolds’ PPPA application over several days between October 2023 and January 2024. In April 2024, he ruled that parts of DWR’s counterclaim—specifically those concerning dissemination of drone footage and punitive damages—should be dismissed under section 4 of the PPPA. He found, however, that the remaining claims for trespass, nuisance, and privacy invasion could proceed to trial. He emphasized the novelty of the legal questions related to drone surveillance.

Reynolds separately applied for damages under section 8 of the PPPA, asserting that DWR’s counterclaim was brought in bad faith. That application was dismissed in a companion decision (2024 BCSC 1922), with the court finding no persuasive evidence of improper intent by DWR.

Costs assessment and outcome
While the court reserved the issue of costs at the time of the PPPA dismissal ruling, a detailed cost assessment followed. Justice Morley awarded Reynolds two-thirds of her costs on a full indemnity scale under section 7 of the PPPA. He found that DWR’s conduct—including the declaration application and piecemeal affidavits—had unnecessarily prolonged and complicated the proceedings.

Registrar Gaily conducted the cost assessment, considering whether various related procedural steps (like scheduling and cross-examinations) were within the scope of the PPPA application. She found they were, as they directly supported Reynolds’ dismissal efforts. The registrar accepted that Reynolds’ legal team had reasonably incurred those costs and disbursements and that they were proportionate given the complexity and stakes of the litigation.

Reynolds was awarded $165,107.53, representing two-thirds of her full indemnity costs, including disbursements. DWR was awarded one-third of its costs on a party-and-party basis, to be resolved in the cause. No damages were awarded to Reynolds under section 8. The underlying action is scheduled for trial in October 2025.