BC man was defamed but can’t sue women who made unfounded allegation

Two women questioned what happened backstage at a music festival in Merritt, thought it might have amounted to sexual assault, and reported their suspicion to police.

He worked sound at the music festival, partied with the women, and we now know he did nothing wrong. Still, he was arrested, lost his reputation and work in a small industry based on the unfounded allegation.

But can he sue them for defamation?

Those are the finer points of a May 1 BC Supreme Court decision after sound engineer Enrique Blanc said the allegations and multiple rumours that followed damaged his reputation and caused him financial and psychological harm.

Blanc was never charged with any crime, but later sued the women, who are sisters, for defamation. Their identities are protected by a court order.

The crux of the case is whether reporting an alleged sexual assault outweighs the harm done to the accused if the accusation is later unfounded.

The case dates back to 2023, when the two sisters met Blanc at the Bass Coast Festival in Merritt, and he invited them and their friends to dance onstage.

One of the sisters had bought a “leather flogger” at the festival, and while hanging out backstage, Blanc used it to hit them on the bum multiple times. He says the conduct was consensual.

Later, one of the sisters spoke to her partner about what had just occurred and questioned whether it amounted to sexual assault. The couple appear to have gotten into an argument about it.

The other sister said she doesn’t have a clear memory of the events after being on stage, but was found dancing at the festival by friends.

She also questioned whether Blanc’s conduct could have been a sexual assault, and had further concerns that he may have sexually assaulted her during a period where she had no memory.

There is no reason given as to why the sister came to that conclusion. The judge noted there was no evidence of alcohol use.

Later that night, the sisters bumped into Blanc again and demanded that he delete any photographs or videos of them from his phone, which he did.

Blanc claims that the sisters then accused him of sexual assault, and the conversation was overheard by others around.

The next day, both sisters went to the police, and one underwent a sexual assault forensic examination. The results of the test aren’t given in the court document.

Blanc was detained by police on suspicion of two counts of sexual assault and taken into custody. He was released the next morning and was never charged.

After that, friends and acquaintances began asking what happened, and rumours started to swirl.

“Throughout 2024 and 2025, rumours circulated that he had been arrested for rape or sexual assault, had been criminally charged, had lured and drugged women, and posed a danger to the community,” the decision reads.

In July 2025, Blanc sued, claiming the sisters’ actions amounted to defamation.

The sisters filed a Protection of Public Participation application, more commonly known as an anti-SLAPP suit, accusing Blanc of trying to silence them.

In the decision, BC Supreme Court Justice Kate Saunders doesn’t attempt to make a ruling on what happened at the festival – or whether hitting someone’s bum with a whip could be considered a sexual assault, or if consent was required, sought or attained – but instead looked at whether the sisters’ comments are defamatory.

And if they are defamatory, are they in the public interest, and can they be justified?

Blanc argued the case is about vindicating his reputation and isn’t about suppressing public discourse.

“Allegations of sexual assault are profoundly damaging,” the Justice said, adding that the harm Blanc suffered was serious and real.

“He has suffered significant harm, including detention by police on suspicion of sexual assault, profound impacts on mental health, reputational harm, loss of business opportunities, loss of income, and social isolation,” Justice Saunders said.

However, the Justice said there had to be a causal link between what the sisters had said and done and the harm suffered. The subsequent rumours made it more difficult to make that connection.

“On the evidence, there is a causal connection between the sexual assault reports and the harm (Blanc) suffered. These reports, made to police, security personnel, and medical professionals, triggered the subsequent rumours and reputational damage,” the Justice said.

However, the justice said that while Blanc was harmed, the court had to weigh that against the public interest of protecting expression.

“Protecting this expression encourages reporting and participation in the justice system,” the Justice said.

Allowing the defamation suit to continue could discourage reporting of suspected sexual assault, “creating a significant chilling effect,” the Justice said.

“Individuals in similar circumstances may reasonably fear that reporting allegations, even in good faith and through appropriate channels, could expose them to prolonged and costly litigation if charges do not ultimately follow,” the Justice said.

The Justice said the harm suffered by Blanc was “significant and legitimate,” but he needed to prove that it outweighed the public interest of protecting freedom of expression.

“The strong societal interest in encouraging the reporting of alleged sexual assault, combined with the limited scope and context of… the sexual assault reports… outweighs the harm established by (Blanc),” the Justice ruled.

Justice Saunders said Blanc’s defamation case had some merit, and the claim was not frivolous or vexatious.

However, the Justice ultimately sided with the sisters and dismissed the defamation case.