The Framework: Anti-Slapp Legislation

The Framework: Anti-Slapp Legislation

Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 (the “CJA”) was enacted in response to strategic litigation against public participation (“SLAPP”) lawsuit. Such lawsuits use the court system to limit the effectiveness of the opposing party’s speech or conduct. The stated purpose of sections 137.1 to 137.5 of the CJA is to:

Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest;

• Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest;

• Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and,

• Reduce the risk that participation by the public in debates on matters of public interest will be hampered by fear of legal action.

Section 137.1(2) defines “expression” broadly as “any communication, regardless of whether it is made verbally or non-verbally, whether it is made publically or privately, and whether or not it is directed at a person or entity”.

The phrase “public interest” is not defined in the CJA. However, in Grant v. Torstar Corp.[1], the Supreme Court stated that there is no single test for public interest. Rather, to be in the public interest, some segment of the public must have a genuine stake in knowing about the matter published.[2]

Two-Part Test

The onus, initially, is on the moving party to satisfy the judge that the proceeding arises from an expression that relates to a matter of public interest.[3]

The burden then shifts to the responding party to show (i) that the proceeding has “substantial merit”; (ii) the moving party has no valid defence; and (iii) the expression caused it to suffer harm sufficiently serious that there is greater public interest in allowing the claim to proceed than in protecting the expression.[4]

The Case Of Ed Smith

In Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority v. Smith,[5] the Court applied section 137.1 of the CJA to dismiss the defamation actions brought against the defendant, Ed Smith.

Mr. Smith had published a report titled – “A Call for Accountability at the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority” (the “Report”) – which, among other things, raised questions about the governance of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (“NPCA”). In particular, the Report contained information about two contracts between the plaintiffs, alleging that these “contracts may have been given as consideration for each other, or swapped”.[6]

In dismissing the plaintiffs’ defamation claim, the Court stated, among other things, that there are no grounds to believe that the proceeding has substantial merit, because a government entity (the NPCA) cannot sue an individual for defamation.[7] Moreover, the Report is an expression that relates to a matter of public interest: the governance of the NPCA, a publically funded government body.[8] Lastly, Mr. Smith had the defence of qualified privilege available to him, together with a lack of malice on his part in publishing the Report.[9]

Ultimately, the NPCA was ordered to pay Mr. Smith full indemnity costs, totalling more than $130,000, for having to defend the defamation action. This case is a good example of how the courts have used s.137.1 of the CJA to protect citizens, who express themselves on matters of public interest, without motivation of malice or hatred.

[1] [2009] S.C.J. No. 61, 2009 SCC 61 [“Grant”].

[2] Grant at para. 103.

[3] CJA, s.137.1(3).

[4] CJA, s.137.1(4).

[5] 2017 ONSC 6973, 286 A.C.W.S. (3d) 395 (OSCJ) [“Smith”].

[6] Smith at para. 8.

[7] Smith at para. 47.

[8] Smith at para. 54.

[9] Smith at para. 58.

Insights & Commentary

Now is the Winter of Our Discontent: ONCA Settles How Long Winter Contractors Should Take to Apply Salt, Reiterates Duty of Care Separate from Contractual Duties - photo
  • Commentaries

Now is the Winter of Our Discontent: ONCA Settles How Long Winter Contractors Should Take to Apply Salt, Reiterates Duty of Care Separate from Contractual Duties

Now is the Winter of Our Discontent:[1] ONCA Settles How Long Winter Contractors Should Take to Apply Salt, Reiterates Duty of Care Separate from Contractual Duties By: Michael A. Valdez Introduction In the recent decision of Musa v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 255,[2] the Ontario Court of Appeal offers clear guidance as to how long a … Continued

The Question of Coverage for Innocent Passengers in Stolen Vehicles: A Review of the 2023 Ontario Court of Appeal Decision in Burnham v Co-operators General Insurance Company - photo
  • Commentaries

The Question of Coverage for Innocent Passengers in Stolen Vehicles: A Review of the 2023 Ontario Court of Appeal Decision in Burnham v Co-operators General Insurance Company

By Thomas Russell Background On August 25, 2014, Joshua Burnham was asleep in the back of a stolen pickup truck when it was involved in a motor vehicle accident, tragically killing the driver and front-seated passenger of the vehicle.[1] Arising out of this horrible situation was the question of who should cover the damages that … Continued

Causation and Foreseeability in Case v Pattison: Negligent Inspections Conducted by an Intervening Party do not Negate the Liability of a Preceding Tortfeasor - photo
  • Commentaries

Causation and Foreseeability in Case v Pattison: Negligent Inspections Conducted by an Intervening Party do not Negate the Liability of a Preceding Tortfeasor

By: Zachary Sherman Introduction In the May 2023 decision of Case v. Pattison,[1] the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ the Court”) provided clarification on the foreseeability and causation analysis to be applied where an intervening party negligently performs their duty to inspect the work of a preceding tortfeasor. In conducting their analysis, the Court concluded … Continued

From Settlement to Stay: The Ontario Court of Appeal Affirms the Importance of Prompt Disclosure of Settlement Information to Related Parties - photo
  • Commentaries

From Settlement to Stay: The Ontario Court of Appeal Affirms the Importance of Prompt Disclosure of Settlement Information to Related Parties

In its recent decision, Skymark Finance Corporation v Ontario, 2023 ONCA 234[1], the Ontario Court of Appeal took the opportunity to comment on the importance of immediate disclosure of settlement minutes to other parties in an action and to clarify the meaning of the phrase “to change the entirety of the litigation landscape”. The Immediate … Continued

by

When are Insurers Required to Provide Medical Reasons for the Denial of Statutory Accident Benefits? - photo
  • Commentaries

When are Insurers Required to Provide Medical Reasons for the Denial of Statutory Accident Benefits?

An insurer may discontinue an insured’s entitlement to benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule[1] (“the SABS”) pursuant to any of the specified grounds enumerated under section 37(2). If the insurer determines that the insured is ineligible for benefits on the basis of any of these grounds, section 37(4) requires the insurer to provide notice, … Continued

by

Vitriol or Value? ONCA Provides Direction on Anti-SLAPP Analysis - photo
  • Commentaries

Vitriol or Value? ONCA Provides Direction on Anti-SLAPP Analysis

Introduction In Thorman v. McGraw,[1] the Ontario Court of Appeal clarified section 137.1(4)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act and further narrowed the class of public expression deemed worthy of protection under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP legislation. Background In December 2013, the respondent entered into an agreement with the appellants to renovate her bathroom. The respondent was … Continued

by

All News