CITATION: Stackhouse, Jr., v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.,2025 ONSC 3183
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
JOHN GORDON STACKHOUSE, JR. and SARAH JANE BRITTON
Plaintiffs/Responding Parties
- and –
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Defendant/Moving Party
Denis Grigoras for the Plaintiffs
Andrea Gonsalves and Geri Angelova for the Defendant
HEARD: MAY 22, 2025
INTRODUCTION
"Anti-SLAPP" Legislation
1In November of 2015, Ontario passed legislation to protect public interest expression from "strategic lawsuits against public participation" (SLAPP). These provisions are found in sections 137.1 to 137.5 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 (CJA).
2"Anti-SLAPP" legislation responds to the potentially chilling effect on public discourse where lawsuits are used to silence or deter others from expression on matters of public interest: 1704604 Ontario Ltd. v. Pointes Protection Association, 2020 SCC 22, [2020] 2 SCR 587 at paras. 1-4.
3Section 137.1 is the legislative response to screen out actions which would unduly limit freedom of expression in matters of public interest. The section states the purpose of Ontario's anti-SLAPP provisions:
(a) to encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest;
(b) to promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest;
(c) to discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and
(d) to reduce the risk that participation by the public in debates on matters of public interest will be hampered by fear of legal action.
The Claim and the s. 137.1 Motion
4The plaintiffs, Dr. John Stackhouse and Sarah-Jane Britton, issued a claim seeking $10.35 million in damages for defamation and negligence from the defendant, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. CBC moved to dismiss the claim pursuant to s. 137.1. After hearing submissions, I granted CBC's "anti-SLAPP" motion with reasons to follow. These are those reasons.
The Background to the Claim and the Motion
5Dr. Stackhouse claims he was defamed by several news stories published by CBC following his termination from employment as a professor with Crandall University in November 2023. His spouse, Sarah-Jane Britton, claims in negligence by CBC.
6The backdrop to the claim is as follows. Dr. Crandall was employed as a professor of religious studies at Crandall University from 2015 until 2023. Prior to that he was employed as a professor at Regent College in Vancouver for 17 years.
7By early 2023, Dr. Stackhouse and the Crandall administration were aware that some of his students had expressed concerns about his "inappropriate" in-class comments. On March 28, 2023, an Instagram account, @DoBetterCrandall, received anonymous firsthand student accounts of alleged sexual harassment at Crandall, including a student having "many uncomfortable interactions" with a professor at the university who made comments about her physical appearance in class. Dr. Stackhouse read the posts and recognized himself as the unnamed professor based on some of the events described there.
8On April 8, 2023, an open letter was posted online which called on Crandall to investigate sexual harassment and reform its sexual harassment policy. Approximately 70 Crandall students and alumni signed the open letter.
9On April 14, 2023, Crandall announced an independent investigation by counsel with Pink Larkin LLP. CTV and CBC covered the details of this announcement. The Crandall Student Association issued a statement which described the allegations as "very serious". Dr. Stackhouse was not identified in those media reports.
10On November 15, 2023, the investigator delivered his final report to Crandall. On November 22, 2023, Crandall notified Dr. Stackhouse that the Board of Governors had voted to terminate his employment for cause based on the investigative findings that he had sexually harassed a female member of Crandall University.
11On November 22, 2023, Crandall issued a news release which announced Dr. Stackhouse's termination and summarized the investigative report's findings, referring to a "Faculty Member" who was clearly Dr. Stackhouse because of the content of the news release. The public summary included the following findings:
i. Dr. Stackhouse had created an unwelcoming environment by his interactions with female students. He made persistent comments of a sexual nature, including gender-based comments, sexist remarks, comments about a person's looks, dress and appearance.
ii. The investigator determined that it was more likely than not that there had been student complaints of misconduct at his previous employer, which contributed to the end of his employment. The summary also noted that during his interview by the investigator, "(the faculty member) was asked directly, "was there ever a sexual harassment complaint made against you at (previous institution)?" His reply was "I do not see how it's in my interest to answer that question." At another point, he responded, "there was no open complaint at the time of my leaving." He also stated (words to the effect) that, at (the previous institution), once a sexual harassment complaint is resolved, "it's all confidential, it is kept confidential."
iii. Dr. Stackhouse sent a female student, who worked for him at Crandall, approximately 100 pages of inappropriate emails over a seven month period. Dr. Stackhouse acknowledged to the investigator that this episode was "inappropriate, unhealthy, unbecoming of a professor and cannot be defended." The investigator found that this conduct amounted to sexual harassment and described it as "classic grooming" behaviour.
12During 2023, CBC journalist Katie Nicholson had been investigating reports of Dr. Stackhouse's conduct and the institutional treatment of him at both Crandall and Regent. During the period of the investigation Nicholson conducted on-the-record interviews, obtained documents and gathered information from sources, including certain confidential tips.
13The CBC publications at issue in this lawsuit took place after Crandall released information about the results of its investigation and Dr. Stackhouse's termination to the public. Those publications were as follows:
Publication 1: A breaking news article was published on November 23, under the headline "Christian university severs ties with prof after investigation into allegations of inappropriate behaviour". The article reported on the announcement of Dr. Stackhouse's termination, quoted from the Crandall public summary of the investigation, and provided background from the Instagram posts @DoBetterCrandall as well as the Crandall open letter.
Publication 2: A TV broadcast on the November 26 edition of the National reported on the allegations against Dr. Stackhouse both at Crandall and at Regent. The broadcast included on-camera interviews with three students. This broadcast also reported, based on sources from Regent, that his departure from that university had been linked to similar misconduct, although those circumstances had not been made public.
Publication 3: On November 27, 2023, an online article entitled "Professor terminated by Christian college was repeatedly accused of sexual harassment" was published with similar content to the National TV broadcast. This article highlighted how issues with Non-disclosure Agreements or "NDAs" can allow faculty members who engage in harassment to move between institutions without disclosing prior investigations.
Publication 4: On November 27, 2023, Nicholson was interviewed on CBC radio for "Information Morning-Moncton" in which she discussed the findings of the Crandall investigation and the Regen investigation which led to the confidential settlement. This segment played excerpts from her recorded interviews. It also discussed a growing movement to stop the use of NDAs to silence victims of sexual harassment.
14Nicholson attempted to interview Dr. Stackhouse on five occasions, both before and after Crandall announced the investigation results. She informed him on November 16, 2023 that CBC had spoken with multiple students and alumni from Crandall who raised concerns about his behaviour and shared information that he had been investigated while employed at Regent.
15On November 21, 2023, Nicholson again contacted Dr. Stackhouse asking questions about the allegations of sexual harassment at Crandall, reports of an investigation at Regent, the use of non-disclosure agreements at Regent and whether he was negotiating a resolution at Crandall. He declined all invitations to be interviewed.
16On November 26, 2023, Nicholson learned that Dr. Stackhouse had retained a lawyer. She reached out to counsel, who released a comment on behalf of Dr. Stackhouse. CBC included that statement in its reporting on that same day.
17CBC was not the only media source to report on the Crandall investigation. There was coverage in CTV News Atlantic, Global News, Telegraph Journal, Faith Today and Christianity Today.
APPLYING SECTION 137.1 TO THE RECORD
Does the expression relate to a matter of public interest?
18To establish that a claim should be dismissed under the anti-SLAPP provisions, the onus is on the moving party to first establish that the proceeding arises from an expression that relates to a matter of public interest: Pointes at para. 18.
19"Expression" is defined in s. 137.1(2) as "any communication, regardless of whether it is made verbally or non-verbally, whether it is made publicly or privately, and whether or not it is directed at a person or entity." This case in defamation and for other relief demonstrably flows from CBC's expression in the form of the publications and broadcast.
20The phrase, "a matter of public interest," is not defined in the CJA. To be in the public interest, the subject will be such that a segment of society would have a genuine interest in knowing about it : Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 640 at para. 105: Pointes, supra at paras. 26-28.
21The Court of Appeal for Ontario, in Safavi-Naini v. Rubin Thomlinson LLP, 2023 ONCA 86 considered whether allegations of sexual harassment and a workplace investigation was a matter of public interest. It found that the publication of the investigator's summaries was a matter of public interest in that "The public has significant concern over sexual harassment and workplace harassment and, generally, has an interest in investigations into these issues": Safavi-Naini at para. 19.
22The Court noted that the mere fact that an expression somehow relates to sexual harassment, on its own does not necessarily bring the expression within the public interest scope. Rather, the entire context of the impugned expression should be considered: Safavi-Naini at paras. 20-24.
23The public has a "genuine stake" in knowing about many matters, from science to the arts, morality and religion. The inquiry under s. 137.1(3) is given a broad and expansive interpretation. The range of available topics stem from a democratic interest in wide-ranging public debate: Grant v. Torstar Corp, supra at paras 105-106. At this stage, there is no qualitative analysis of the expression: Pointes at para 28.
24I find that CBC has met its onus under s. 137.1(3). The expression in this case involves allegations and findings of sexual misconduct by a professor towards students in a Canadian educational institution. The issue of how Crandall and Regent handled such allegations are matters of public concern, for segments of Canadian society, including post-secondary students, their families, alumni, faculty and university administrators with oversight of these institutions.
25Further, CBC was not the only public commentator on the Crandall investigation. Other media outlets reported on the findings. Dr. Stackhouse issued a statement through counsel and made a public blog post on the controversy. This activity supports a finding that the issues involved in the expressions were controversial and had become notorious: Benchwood Builders v. Prescott, 2025 ONCA 171 at para. 36.
26Counsel for Dr. Stackhouse sought to characterize this is a private dispute between an employee and employer. He relied on a recent decision from the Court of Appeal for Ontario which that declined to find that private disputes between clients and service providers are matters of public interest: Benchwood Builders at para. 41. All depends on context and circumstances. In some instances, on-line reviews with broader political effects have been found to involve the public interest: Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. B'nai Brith Canada, 2021 ONCA 529, 460 D.L.R. (4th) 245, at para. 12; Thatcher-Craig v. Clearview (Township), 2023 ONCA 96, 480 D.L.R. (4th) 639, at paras. 44-45. I find that the circumstances here are not analogous to a purely private dispute that involves two parties, with little impact on the rights or interests of others.
27Having found that CBC has established that the expression relates to a matter of public interest, I move to the next stages of the analysis found in s. 137.1(4).
Have the plaintiffs demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that there are grounds to believe that its claims have substantial merit? (s. 137.1(4)(a)(i))
28In order to establish there are grounds to believe that a defamation claim has "substantial merit", a plaintiff must establish:
i) that the defendant made the statement,
ii) that the words complained of were published to at least one person,
iii) that the words referred to the plaintiff, and
iv) the words in their natural and ordinary meaning, or in some other meaning pleaded by the plaintiff, are defamatory.
Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61[2009] 3 S.C.R. 640 at para. 28.
29Where these elements are proved, then "falsity and damages" are presumed: Grant v. Torstar Corp: at para. 28. Defamation is a tort of strict liability which requires the defendant to show that the defamatory expression was true: Neufeld v. Bondar, 2025 BCCA 51
30The expression in the CBC reporting clearly meets the first three requirements for defamation. As for whether the words spoken were defamatory, the test articulated in Able Translations Ltd v. Express International Translation Inc., 2018 ONCA 690 at para 29 applies: could the language used, when considered in its ordinary meaning by a reasonable and fair-minded reader, lower Dr. Stackhouse's reputation in the eyes of reasonable people?
31I conclude that the following meanings available from the articles and TV broadcast would tend to lower Dr. Stackhouse's reputation, and meet the test for defamatory speech:
i. Crandall terminated Dr. Stackhouse after a six-month investigation substantiated allegations of sexual harassment by him toward Crandall students;
ii. Students complained because Dr. Stackhouse made them feel uncomfortable in his class;
iii. Dr. Stackhouse was the subject of an investigation at Regent which contributed to the end of his employment there;
iv. Dr. Stackhouse had not been forthcoming with the Crandall investigator when asked about any sexual harassment complaints against Dr. Stackhouse at Regent, and
v. Dr. Stackhouse had entered into a settlement agreement that prevented the disclosure of the Regent investigation to prospective future employers of Dr. Stackhouse.
32Although I find that there are grounds to believe there is substantial merit on the defamation tort pleaded based on the above, I would not do so on the remaining aspects of the claim, for the following reasons. Dr. Stackhouse has also pleaded the tort of public disclosure of private facts, which requires that CBC publicize an aspect of Dr. Stackhouse's private life, to which he did not consent, and which matter would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and was not a matter of legitimate concern to the public.
33The publications relate to his professional conduct at a public institution. The CVC publications would not be "highly offensive" to a reasonable person given that they arose from reporting on investigative findings that had already been publicized by the institution concerned, and the product of legitimate, reasonable and diligent investigation with on-the-record firsthand accounts, and confidential sources. As I have found above, this concerned a matter of legitimate public interest in that it involved the well-being of staff and students, and the reputation of an educational institution and its policies.
34I would similarly decline to find that there are grounds to believe that there is merit to the tort of false light publicity : again because the reports do not place him in a "false light" that would be "highly offensive to a reasonable person". CBC's well-documented, multi-sourced investigative steps counter the requirement to make out this tort. There is not an objective basis in the record that CBC acted in a reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter. and the false light in which Dr. Stackhouse would be placed. The record shows that CBC reported accurately on what was contained in the investigative summary published online by Crandall University. The information from Regent was sourced, corroborated and supported inferentially by the settlement agreement produced by Dr. Stackhouse in this litigation. There is no merit to this cause of action.
35Finally, I find that Ms. Britton's cause of action for the negligent infliction of mental suffering is not tenable in law, and therefore there are no grounds to believe that it has substantial merit. There is no basis for any finding that CBC owed her a duty of care. She was not featured in the reports, and there is no relationship of proximity to be found on this record. The alleged harm relates from her relationship to Dr. Stackhouse. As pointed out by CBC, if the courts were to impose a duty of care by media organizations on person related to the subject of news coverage, then this would lead to indeterminate liability given that no publisher can ever know who might be affected by reporting about a third party.
Has Dr. Stackhouse demonstrated that there are grounds to believe that CBC has no valid defence? (s. 137.1(4)(a)(ii))
36In relation to Dr. Stackhouse's claim in defamation, I must also consider the grounds to believe that CBC has no valid defence. CBC puts three defences in play: responsible communication, justification, and fair comment. It is up to Dr. Stackhouse to show that there are grounds to believe that none of them are "valid defences" or have any real prospect of success on a balance of probabilities: Pointes at paras 58-60.
The Defence of Responsible Communication
37This defence is available where a statement relates to a subject of public interest, and has been done responsibly, taking into account a non-exhaustive list of factors including the seriousness of the allegations, timeliness of the reporting, the status and reliability of the sources, the attempts to seek the "other side" of the story, the necessity of including the allegedly defamatory statements and the "reportage", that is, were statements fairly reported: Grant v. Torstar at paras. 111-124.
38Dr. Stackhouse submits that he has shown that this defence has no merit based on his position that the expressions did not relate to matters of public interest. For the reasons provided above in this analysis, I disagree and have found that the matters reported were of public interest. This part of the argument as to the validity of the responsible communication defence must fail.
39Dr. Stackhouse similarly submits that the defence is not available because Nicholson did not carefully verify the facts and relied on confidential sources that should have caused her to use caution. I disagree. The record reveals that Nicholson spoke to many individuals who signed the Crandall open letter in April of 2023. She interviewed three Crandall students who provided firsthand accounts of Dr. Stackhouse's conduct. Further, in cross-examination, Dr. Stackhouse did not deny statements that were attributed to him by his former students, although he also said that his statements were misinterpreted or taken out of context, or that he was joking.
40In addition to the Crandall students who agreed to speak on-the-record, a former student and staff member at Regent provided firsthand accounts of Dr. Stackhouse's conduct there, including reports that other students had felt uncomfortable with his comments. Another alumnus of Regent confirmed the impetus for the 2014 investigation which involved inviting a female teaching assistant to his private room to act on "mutual feelings". The email had been inadvertently copied to another person, who reported it to the administration. Another source provided an email to discuss the final report at Regent and findings that he had bullied and sexually harassed students and staff and that this was a persistent pattern of behaviour for which he had been warned. Dr. Stackhouse provided a copy of the settlement agreement and release, which corroborated several of the terms described in the email that Nicholson had received from her confidential source. He confirmed in cross-examinations that his conduct had been investigated in 2014 at Regent. The terms of the Regent settlement agreement included a requirement that Dr. Stackhouse must "avoid any retaliation, directly or indirectly, against any person who participated in the investigation."
41Dr. Stackhouse refused to answer questions in cross-examination that Regent's investigation related to allegations of sexual harassment against him. This is information which he would logically have. In these circumstances, including the content of the information from Nicholson's confidential source, the email described above to a teaching assistant and the inferences available from the content of the settlement agreement, there is a reasonably available inference that similar conduct to that at Crandall led to his termination from Regent, pursuant to a confidentiality agreement. This evidence supports reasonable grounds to believe that CBC has a defence of responsible communication.
42Dr. Stackhouse has not shown there are grounds to believe that the defence of responsible communication is not valid.
The Defence of Justification
43Justification is available where the defendant shows that there is substantial truth to the "sting" or the "main thrust" of the expression: DEI Films Ltd. v. Tiwari, 2018 ONSC 4423.
44Here, there were several such "stings" as described above. There are grounds to believe that this defence is available to CBC from the substantial number of witnesses and sources which informed the content of CBC's reporting. These include the public record of the Crandall investigative findings, the information provided by witnesses and sources, the tape recording of one of the events described in one of Dr. Stackhouse's lectures (where he asked a female student to turn on her camera and then described in detail what the student might put on for an imaginary evening out with him), and Dr. Stackhouse's admissions to the investigator, his answers on cross-examination and the settlement agreement from Regent.
45The settlement agreement required Regent to seal and not disclose Dr. Stackhouse's file and the parties to keep the terms of the settlement confidential. Thus it is available to CBC to tender this evidence to show that its description of this settlement as an NDA was justified. Dr. Stackhouse has not shown there are grounds to believe that CBC would not have a defence of justification in these circumstances.
The Defence of Fair Comment
46The defence of fair comment applies to statements which are a matter of public interest. The law protects opinions that are based in fact, recognizable as comment, and fairly made. WIC Radio v. Simpson, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 420, 2008 SCC 40 at para 28; Hansman v. Neufeld, 2023 SCC 14 at para 114-117.
47CBC submits that several of the people who were quoted in the publications made statements which would qualify as fair comment including the following:
i. Liz LeClair of "Can't Buy My Silence" a movement aimed at ending the misuse of NDAs, who spoke in Publications 2 and 3: "We call it pass the garbage."
ii. Abigal Harman in Publication 2: "I was not at all surprised. I would assume that someone who was not held accountable for his actions was going to simply continue the same misconduct at a different institution."
iii. Crandall chair Sheila Cummings in Publication 2: "I think it's important that we're open and honest about everything that we do...Would it have been easier to just try to sweep this under the carpet? Perhaps. But it was not what was right and honest."
iv. Courtney Lutes is quoted in Publication 3: "I just don't want these patterns and these behaviours to continue, she said. "I don't want someone to feel unsafe in their class, especially when you're trying to better yourself and get a higher degree."
v. Michaela Bourque spoke in Publication 4: It is sort of painful to know, really that this may have been avoided altogether if repercussions had been more severe the first time. This needs to be taken care of. This shouldn't go on at any school. No school should have professors in a position that they can potentially harm students and to continue to do so at institutions and institutions with things like this being swept under the rug."
48I find that "generously interpreted" these are expressions of opinion that could arise fairly from the facts as reported and found by CBC in its investigation: WIC Radio at para. 30.
49Dr. Stackhouse submits that fair comment is not available because these are not matters of public interest and because none of the commentary is grounded in fact. I disagree. For the reasons given above, this is a matter of public interest. There is a record on which a trial court could find that the commentary reasonable emanates from the facts discovered and corroborated by CBC.
50I find that in this context, the portion of the expression is recognizable fair comment, based on the established facts. Dr. Stackhouse has not met his onus of showing that there are grounds to believe that CBC does not have a valid defence of fair comment available to it.
Balancing the Harm Suffered Against the Interests in Protecting the Expression: Section 137.1 (4)(b)
51The final stage of the analysis requires the plaintiff to show on a balance of probabilities that the harm likely to be or that has been suffered by the responding party (the plaintiff) because of the moving party's expression, is sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the proceedings to continue outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression: Pointes at paras. 18 and 82.
52Monetary damages suffered by a plaintiff are a key feature in the assessment of this part of the test under s. 137.1(4)(b): United Soils Management Ltd v. Katie Mohammed 2019 ONCA 128.
53Dr. Stackhouse has given evidence that these expressions have harmed him and his career. Although he has not quantified his damages, he is entitled to rely on the presumption of damages in defamation: United Soils Management Ltd v. Katie Mohammed 2019 ONCA 128 at para. 22.
54In considering the harm suffered here, there is a causal complication. The reporting by CBC was secondary to the publication of the investigation, Dr. Stackhouse's termination by Crandall and the details as to the findings made against him which overlap with the information contained in much of the CBC publications.
55Further, there was broad publication of the investigation's outcome in other media outlets. This content can fairly be found to have damaged Dr. Stackhouse's professional reputation, tracing back to conduct that even he originally conceded was "inappropriate, unhealthy, unbecoming of a professor and cannot be defended."
56I am not able to conclude that CBC's publications can be shown to be the only or even the primary cause of harm to Dr. Stackhouse in the context of his admitted problematic conduct, the Crandall publications and other reports. There is a potential connection between his prospects of being hired in similar educational settings because of Crandall's findings and public release of his termination.
57The balancing phase also considers whether there is a pattern of litigation by the plaintiffs to suppress public comment about the conduct involved. Dr. Stackhouse did send "cease and desist" letters to at least two other media outlets. He has sued Crandall University for defamation and wrongful dismissal. I regard these parallel proceedings as neutral in the balancing phase, because while they could be seen as efforts to silence fair but critical comment, these are also consistent with an individual seeking to protect their reputation against heavier resourced institutions and national media outlets. This is not a "David and Goliath" scenario where the defendant is clearly outweighed by the power of a plaintiff, who is clearly seeking to legally intimidate and silence its target.
59Finally, I consider the public interest in the expression, "whether the quality and nature of the expression and the motivation behind it justify protecting the expression from the defamation action": UM Financial Inc. v. Butler, 2025 ONSC 480 at para. 64. I give substantial weight to the public interest in the reporting done on a matter of concern to more than merely the parties involved. The story is about more than an individual and the circumstances of termination from a position. It is also about the potential impact of policies put in place by educational institutions on student learning environments. It affects the fundamental rights of students in post-secondary settings to a harassment-free learning environment. The expression at issue was reporting on a contrast in approaches by two different institutions, and the implications of those approaches. All carried out by a neutral media organization, which meticulously documented its sources of information, sought corroboration, and offered multiple opportunities to Dr. Stackhouse to respond. Finally, when Dr. Stackhouse issued a statement through counsel, CBC reported the statement. I conclude there was a strong public interest in the matters reported here. There is no evidence of malice or ill intent on the part of CBC or its reporter, Katie Nicholson, against Dr. Stackhouse. This aspect of the analysis is determinative in my view.
59I find that the weighing of the relevant factors supports the relief sought by CBC pursuant to s. 137.1.
CONCLUSION
59The motion is granted, and the action is dismissed.
COSTS
60CBC is entitled to its full indemnity costs by virtue of s. 137.1(7). Plaintiff counsel took no issue with the quantum of costs found in CBC counsel's costs outline. In submissions, CBC confirmed it had delivered an offer to settle on a no-costs basis if the plaintiffs consented to the dismissal of their action. I award costs in favour of CBC in the amount of $115,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST.
Leiper, J.
CITATION: Stackhouse, Jr., v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.,2025 ONSC 3183
COURT FILE NO.: CV-24-00715325
DATE: 2025-05-28
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
JOHN GORDON STACKHOUSE, JR. and SARAH JANE BRITTON
Plaintiffs/Responding Parties
- and –
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Defendant/Moving Party
REASONS FOR DECISION
Released: May 28, 2025