Zoutman v. Graham

Zoutman v. Graham

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal: the motions judge properly declined anti‑SLAPP relief given the appellant's delay and failure to satisfy the public interest requirement for ten postings; the judge properly inferred publication, found appellant authored the postings and acted with malice, and correctly granted summary judgment with damages and injunction; appellate interference was unwarranted and costs of $16,000 were awarded to the respondent.

Citation
2020 ONCA 767
Parties
Plaintiff / Respondent: Dr. Dick Eric Zoutman; Defendant / Appellant: James Graham; Defendant / Appellant: RateMDs.com
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Action With Anti‑slapp Motion Under S.137.1 Courts of Justice Act / Appeal From Motions Judge Decision on Concurrent Anti‑slapp Motion and Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Publication on the Internet, Authorship of Online Postings, Public Interest Requirement, Fair Comment Defence, Damages and Injunctions, Costs
Source Language
English
Defamation Anti‑slapp / Courts of Justice Act S.137.1 Civil Procedure Internet Law Summary Judgment Publication on the Internet Authorship of Online Postings Public Interest Requirement +3 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Dick Eric Zoutman

Plaintiff / Respondent

James Graham

Defendant / Appellant

RateMDs.com

Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation Action With Anti‑slapp Motion Under S.137.1 Courts of Justice Act / Appeal From Motions Judge Decision on Concurrent Anti‑slapp Motion and Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the s.137.1 anti‑SLAPP motion should be granted or dismissed (timing/delay and public interest)
  2. 2 Whether the postings were published to at least one third party
  3. 3 Whether the appellant authored the impugned internet postings

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal: the motions judge properly declined anti‑SLAPP relief given the appellant's delay and failure to satisfy the public interest requirement for ten postings; the judge properly inferred publication, found appellant authored the postings and acted with malice, and correctly granted summary judgment with damages and injunction; appellate interference was unwarranted and costs of $16,000 were awarded to the respondent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Motions judge had awarded summary judgment in favour of the respondent in the amount of $50,000 and a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from disseminating defamatory content about the respondent and had ordered costs of $50,000; Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the...