By: Danika Osborne
Reviewed by: Katie Di Tomaso
INTRODUCTION
The Court of Appeal for Ontario (“ONCA”) in Rajic v. MacDonald, 2026 ONCA 288 clarified the interpretation of the “public interest” requirement under s. 137.1(3) of the Courts of Justice Act (“CJA”) in anti-SLAPP motions. The ONCA held that the motion judge applied a restrictive approach by effectively raising the threshold and requiring public dissemination. Notably, the ONCA reaffirmed that the threshold is low and that even private communications may qualify under the public interest threshold if their subject matter engages broader community concerns.[1]
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The respondent, Fr. Ljubomir Rajic, is a Serbian Orthodox priest who swore an affidavit in March 2022 for a party in a family law dispute involving the appellant, Rebecca MacDonald. [2]
In September 2022, MacDonald filed a complaint with the Serbian Orthodox Church authorities criticizing Fr. Rajic’s conduct. Following her complaint, the Church initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. [3]
Fr. Rajic then commenced a defamation action against MacDonald.[4] In response, MacDonald brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the CJA seeking dismissal of the claim.[5] The motion judge dismissed MacDonald’s motion at the threshold stage, concluding that the expression did not relate to a matter of public interest. [6]
POSITION OF THE PARTIES
MacDonald argued that her complaint went beyond a private dispute and raised public interest concerns, including the propriety of clergy involvement in litigation, neutrality expectations, and potential reputational harm to the Church.
Fr. Rajic took the opposite view and argued that the complaint stemmed solely from a private grievance and did not engage issues of public interest.
CONCLUSION OF THE MOTION JUDGE
Justice Akazaki held that MacDonald failed to meet the s. 137.1(3) threshold. The reasons emphasized that the complaint was private in nature and not disseminated publicly, concluding that it did not enter the “the public market square of ideas and opinions.”[7]
ISSUE ON APPEAL
The ONCA was required to determine whether the motion judge erred in finding that the expression did not relate to a matter of public interest, specifically by misapplying the legal test under s. 137.1(3). [8]
Public Interest Threshold Under s. 137.1(3)
Section 137.1(3) of the CJA provides that:
“On motion by a person against whom a proceeding is brought, a judge shall, subject to subsection (4), dismiss the proceeding against the person if the person satisfies the judge that the proceeding arises from an expression made by the person that relates to a matter of public interest.”[9]
The ONCA reaffirmed that the threshold is intentionally low and requires no qualitative assessment of the expression. The inquiry is whether the subject matter is one in which some segment of the community has a genuine interest. [10]
The motion judge erred in interpreting prior case law, particularly Benchwood Builders Inc. v Prescott [11], as raising the threshold for an expression to qualify as a matter of public interest. The ONCA clarified that Benchwood Builders did not heighten the threshold but, instead, addressed a narrow issue concerning online reviews. By mischaracterizing this authority, the motion judge improperly elevated the applicable standard under s 137.1(3). [12]
Public Dissemination Not Required
In addition, the ONCA found a second error in the motion judge’s focus on the private nature of the communication. The Court emphasized that audience size is not determinative. Even communications made to a small or specialized audience may relate to matters of public interest. [13]
The proper inquiry is what the expression is about, not how widely it is shared. Complaints made to institutional or regulatory bodies can still engage public interest if they raise broader concerns. [14]
Application to This Case
The ONCA held that MacDonald’s complaint, went beyond a purely private dispute. Her allegations raised concerns about the conduct of clergy, adherence to institutional expectations, and risks to the Church’s reputation. These issues could engage the interest of the Church community. [15]
The Court also noted that allegations relating to Fr. Rajic’s conduct and fitness as a priest further supported the conclusion that the expression concerned matters of public interest. Even if some allegations were speculative or controversial, that is irrelevant at the threshold stage. [16]
Since at least one aspect of the expression related to a matter of public interest, the s. 137.1(3) requirement was met. [17]
ONCA REMEDY
The ONCA allowed the appeal and set aside the motion judge’s decision. However, it declined to determine the motion itself under s. 137.1(4), as the lower court had not conducted the necessary second-stage analysis.[18]
The matter was remitted to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to be heard by a different judge of that court. [19]
TAKEAWAY
This significant decision reinforces that the public interest threshold in anti-SLAPP motions is low and must not be applied restrictively. The ONCA instructs that courts must focus on the content of the expression. Private communications can meet the threshold if they raise issues of broader concern. Importantly, expression arising from personal disputes may still qualify where it touches on institutional conduct, professional responsibilities, or community interests.
Anti-SLAPP protections remain broadly available where expression contributes to matters of legitimate public interest, regardless of how or where that expression is communicated.
This decision can have widespread significance as it deals with accountability, civic participation, and the protection of meaningful expression in Canadian society.
[1] Rajic v MacDonald, 2026 ONCA 288 (CanLII) [ONCA Decision].
[2] ONCA Decision, at para 1.
[3] ONCA Decision, at para 1.
[4] ONCA Decision, at para 2.
[5] Court of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43, s 137.1(1) [CJA].
[6] ONCA Decision, at para 2.
[7] ONCA Decision, at para 8.
[8] ONCA Decision, at para 3.
[9] CJA, s 137.1(3).
[10] ONCA Decision, at paras 6 and 10.
[11] Benchwood Builders Inc v Prescott, 2025 ONCA 171, at para 43.
[12] ONCA Decision, at para 5.
[13] ONCA Decision, at paras 10-11.
[14] ONCA Decision, at paras 10-11.
[15] ONCA Decision, at paras 12-14.
[16] ONCA Decision, at paras 13-15.
[17] ONCA Decision, at paras 16-18.
[18] CJA, s 137.1(4).
[19] ONCA Decision, at para 19.
