A British Columbia worker who created and distributed a fake newspaper article describing herself shooting and killing two former co-workers has lost her appeal of a court decision dismissing her malicious prosecution lawsuit against the province.
The BC Court of Appeal upheld a lower court ruling that found the Crown had reasonable and probable cause to prosecute C.P. for uttering threats, even though she was ultimately acquitted of the criminal charges.
The fake news article
C.P. created and circulated to approximately 200 recipients a false newspaper article that described her going to her former employer’s office, opening fire and killing two of her former co-workers, before returning home and taking her own life.
The fabricated story resulted in C.P. being charged with two counts of threatening to cause death or bodily harm under the Criminal Code. She made a voluntary statement to police identifying the two fictional victims and admitting she was the author of both the false article and the email distributing it.
At her criminal trial, the judge found the actus reus was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the trial judge held that the mens rea — C.P.’s intent to convey a threat — was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted her.
The trial judge noted in his decision: “Had she intended to convey a threat in direct language she is clearly capable of doing so. These News Stories were written in the past tense as false reporting, were in exceptionally poor taste and judgment but ultimately the court is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that they were drafted and communicated by the defendant with the intention to be taken seriously or intimidate.”
Civil lawsuit filed
Following her acquittal, C.P. filed a civil claim for malicious prosecution and Charter damages, arguing the prosecution was undertaken without reasonable and probable cause and was motivated by malice or an improper purpose.
The lower court dismissed her claim under Rule 9-6, which allows courts to dismiss actions where there is no genuine issue for trial.
The chambers judge found there were reasonable grounds for the Crown to be satisfied there was a substantial likelihood of conviction, noting: “While it was open to the Provincial Court Judge to acquit Ms. Pereira for the reasons that he stated, even a cursory examination of the News Article, which Ms. Pereira admitted authoring, is sufficient to meet the reasonable and probable cause test.”
Appeal court analysis
On appeal, C.P. raised three main arguments: the chambers judge impermissibly weighed evidence, failed to address allegations of improper purpose, and wrongly dismissed her Charter damages claim.
The Court of Appeal rejected all three arguments.
Regarding the weighing of evidence, the court noted that C.P. “misconstrues what it means to weigh evidence.” The court explained that on a Rule 9-6 application, there was little controverted evidence and the conflicts were immaterial.
“The chambers judge’s conclusions are consistent with the limited weighing of evidence that is permissible on a Rule 9-6 application,” the court found.
Reasonable and probable cause established
The appeal court determined the chambers judge correctly found reasonable and probable cause existed to commence the criminal prosecution.
“The chambers judge found that evidence was sufficient to establish that reasonable and probable cause existed to commence a criminal prosecution from an objective standpoint, the criminal process was properly employed. The inquiry did not need to go further,” the court stated.
The court emphasized that the content of the fake article itself was sufficient to establish reasonable and probable cause, writing: “In my opinion, these words are not taken out of context. Contrary to (C.P.’s) submissions, they themselves could be sufficient to establish reasonable and probable cause.”
The court noted that even though C.P. included a disclaimer in the header, this was not sufficient to displace what could be perceived as an alarming message. “The detail in this fabrication in and of itself could be considered threatening. The fact that similar workplace incidents such as those described in the news article do in fact occur on occasion enhances the threatening aspect of the news article.”
Charter damages claim fails
C.P.’s claim for Charter damages was based on the Crown’s failure to disclose a witness statement. However, the court found this statement was inculpatory and would not have assisted her defence.
The undisclosed statement came from L.M., one of the employees referenced in the fake news article. While L.M. said she was never threatened by C.P. at work, she also stated: “I’m scared of her now, after that that article. I am scared of her now.”
The court concluded: “The statement was clearly inculpatory. The portions that were not wholly inculpatory, for example the witness’s statement that she was never threatened by the appellant at work, are irrelevant. The statement would not have assisted the appellant in mounting a defence to the charge of uttering threats.”
Bias allegations rejected
C.P. also alleged bias against the chambers judge, which the appeal court firmly rejected. The court noted there is a strong presumption of judicial impartiality that is not easily displaced.
“Only someone sceptical of all the traditions of integrity and impartiality of judges might suspect bias as the font and source of all judicial error, no matter how trivial. There is no basis for an apprehension of bias in the alleged misapprehension, or at all in this case,” the court stated.
The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the Crown.
For more information, see (Plaintiff) v. British Columbia, 2025 BCCA 216 (CanLII).
