One Vancouver drag queen’s defamation case against another drag performer who claimed sexual assault may proceed to trial, a B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled Feb. 15.
James Goranko, who performs as Alma B’itches, and Carl McDonald, whose drag name is Carlotta Gurl, met about 10 years ago.
Goranko alleges McDonald sexually assaulted them on three occasions between January and June 2014.
There were multiple posts made on social media to that effect, the court heard.
McDonald has denied the assaults occurred and filed a defamation suit, the subject of Justice Karen Douglas’s decision.
Goranko has asked the defamation action be dismissed, claiming McDonald brought the case to stifle their expression on matters of public interest, specifically their own experience as a victim of sexual assault and the prevalence of sexual assault in the drag show entertainment industry.
Goranko claimed valid defences to the defamation claim against them, including justification, fair comment and responsible communication.
Goranko suggested that removing obstacles to the reporting of sexual assault by protecting their expression far outweighs the public interest in permitting the defamation case to proceed.
McDonald, however, brought a cross application to strike references in evidence to an apology they made to Goranko on the basis that it is inadmissible evidence.
McDonald said Goranko made public statements on social media that he sexually assaulted Goranko, accusations McDonald denies.
Douglas said whether the allegations are true or not was not the subject for her current decision.
Rather, she had to decide if the defamation case should go ahead.
“I conclude that this defamation claim is one that ought to be allowed to proceed,” Douglas said.
The judge said McDonald has established the potential for harm as a result of Goranko’s claims, that any possible harm “suffered as a result of (Goranko’s) expression is sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting this defamation proceeding to continue outweighs the public interest in protecting (Goranko’s) expression.
“The appropriate balance between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation in this case is to permit (McDonald’s) defamation claim to proceed, and to allow (McDonald) an opportunity to establish that they are not the person (Goranko) described in the impugned statements,” Douglas said.
