Bent v. Platnick

Bent v. Platnick

Majority: The communication satisfied the s.137.1(3) threshold as expression on a matter of public interest, but the respondent discharged the shifted s.137.1(4) burdens on a grounds-to-believe standard: the defamation claim had substantial merit, the moving party’s defences (justification and qualified privilege) lacked a real prospect of success on the record (including fresh evidence admitted in part), and the likely harm (reputational and quantifiable economic loss) was sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the defamation proceeding to continue outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression; accordingly the s.137.1 motion was dismissed and the...

Citation
2020 SCC 23
Parties
Appellant/defendant (moving Party): Maia Bent; Appellant/defendant (moving Party): Lerners LLP; Respondent/plaintiff: Howard Platnick
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Defamation; Anti‑slapp Motion Under Courts of Justice Act S.137.1 / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Ontario Court of Appeal; S.137.1 Motion to Dismiss (anti‑slapp) Adjudicated on Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; s.137.1 motion dismissed; defamation proceeding remitted to Superior Court to proceed to trial
Legal Topics
Anti‑slapp Framework (s.137.1 Cja), Qualified Privilege, Justification (truth) Defence, Republication Liability, Admission of Fresh Evidence (palmer Test), Public Interest Balancing Under S.137.1(4)(b), Damages for Reputational and Economic Harm
Source Language
English
Defamation Freedom of Expression Civil Procedure Evidence Professional Responsibility Administrative Law Anti‑slapp Framework (s.137.1 Cja) Qualified Privilege +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maia Bent

Appellant/defendant (moving Party)

Lerners LLP

Appellant/defendant (moving Party)

Howard Platnick

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Defamation; Anti‑slapp Motion Under Courts of Justice Act S.137.1 / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Ontario Court of Appeal; S.137.1 Motion to Dismiss (anti‑slapp) Adjudicated on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant’s email constituted expression relating to a matter of public interest under s.137.1(3)
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff demonstrated grounds to believe the defamation claim has substantial merit under s.137.1(4)(a)(i)
  3. 3 Whether the moving party has no valid defence (justification or qualified privilege) under s.137.1(4)(a)(ii)

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: The communication satisfied the s.137.1(3) threshold as expression on a matter of public interest, but the respondent discharged the shifted s.137.1(4) burdens on a grounds-to-believe standard: the defamation claim had substantial merit, the moving party’s defences (justification and qualified privilege) lacked a real prospect of success on the record (including fresh evidence admitted in part), and the likely harm (reputational and quantifiable economic loss) was sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the defamation proceeding to continue outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression; accordingly the s.137.1 motion was dismissed and the...

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; s.137.1 motion dismissed; defamation proceeding remitted to Superior Court to proceed to trial

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed by Supreme Court of Canada (majority)
  • s.137.1 motion dismissed and underlying defamation action allowed to proceed to trial