The BC Court of Appeals has dismissed former UBC staff member Ian Linkletter’s appeal of a previous judge’s ruling dismissing most of his anti-SLAPP application against Proctorio, extending an over two year-long legal battle.
Proctorio sued Linkletter — who was then a UBC staff member — in September 2020 after he tweeted links to unlisted YouTube videos explaining how the company’s proctoring software worked and a screenshot from its help centre. UBC used Proctorio to invigilate online exams throughout the pandemic until it restricted usage of the software in March 2021.
Linkletter filed an anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) application in October 2020, arguing the lawsuit was groundless and an attempt to silence him. The application was heard in the BC Supreme Court in February 2022 following several delays. Justice Warren B. Milman dismissed almost all of Linkletter’s application under the Protection of Public Participation Act (PPPA) in a March ruling.
The judge also narrowed the interim injunction from Proctorio limiting Linkletter from speaking about how Proctorio works through public sources.
In July 2022, Linkletter’s legal team filed an appeal of Milman’s ruling, arguing the judge made three errors in his judgement.
These errors were deciding that Linkletter breached his obligation of confidence; that his tweets containing hyperlinks to videos violated copyright law; and that Proctorio had demonstrated that the harm suffered from Linkletter’s tweets outweighed the public interest in protecting Linkletter’s expression.
Linkletter and Proctorio’s legal teams argued the appeal before the BC Court of Appeals in December 2022.
- Proctorio v. Linkletter, one year in
- Linkletter’s counsel argues tweets criticizing Proctorio should be protected expression at anti-SLAPP application hearing
- Court hears appeal from former UBC staff member on mostly-refused anti-SLAPP application against Proctorio
Wednesday’s ruling from the Court of Appeals — written by former BC Supreme Court Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon and former BC Supreme Court Justices Harvey M. Groberman and Ronald A. Skolrood — found Milman did not make these three errors.
“Ultimately, I can see no reviewable error in the judge's findings of fact, analysis, or weighing of the competing public interests. I would accordingly dismiss the appeal,” Fenlon wrote.
She added that the appeals decision was challenging given the “nature of both the claim and the expression in question.”
The Ubyssey did not hear back by publishing time from Proctorio.
In a blog post shared on Wednesday afternoon, Linkletter said the Court of Appeals decision was concerning.
“The implications for people who express themselves online about matters of public interest are significant: professionals and scholars like me will be less likely to share their expert knowledge, even if it could help protect students and other vulnerable communities, knowing they could face a lawsuit like this from a wealthy corporation in response,” he wrote.
“The Protection of Public Participation Act hasn’t done its job.”
Linkletter added that he was encouraging people to do what they can to protect students and to not let “anyone or anything take away [their] human right to freedom of expression.”
With the appeal dismissed, Proctorio’s original lawsuit against Linkletter will now be heard in court, although when that will be remains unclear.
In his blog post, Linkletter said he will be taking some time to consider his next steps.
“Thank you all from the bottom of my heart for your ongoing support and help. I will update you when I know what I will be doing next.”