Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court pruned a counterclaim about drone use, dismissing dissemination-based claims and punitive damages under the PPPA, while allowing physical intrusion and surveillance claims to proceed.
The Court of Appeal held that the appellants met the generous s.137.1(3) publicâinterest threshold because the impugned statements addressed business labour practices affecting vulnerable workers, but on a fresh limited merits review the respondents satisfied s.137.1(4)(a) and (b): there were grounds to believe the defamation claim had substantial merit, the appellants' defences lacked a real prospect of success (malice/recklessness available from the record), and the likely and actual harm to the respondents outweighed the public interest in protecting the appellants' lowâquality, motiveâdriâŚ
Source excerpt
The court dismissed Timothy Durkinâs defamation and privacy action under British Columbiaâs anti-SLAPP law, finding the article addressed public interest and the journalism defence had real prospects.
The appellants were entirely successful on appeal; there was no conduct warranting denial of costs; the court awarded costs of the appeal but reduced the quantum to an amount consistent with comparable appeals ($25,000). The court found the motion judge erred in treating the expression as related to public interest; applying Veneruzzo, the presumption in s.137.1(8) did not bar awarding costs of the original motion to the successful respondent, and the appellants were awarded $36,300 for the original motion inclusive of disbursements and HST.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held the relevant expression was limited to the specific 11 paragraphs in the OLRB response and the portions of the attached statement of claim; those statements were essentially a private dispute about alleged misconduct between competitors and did not, in the circumstances, relate to a matter of public interest under s.137.1, therefore the anti-SLAPP threshold was not met and the dismissal under s.137.1 was set aside.
Source excerpt
Explore more
