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 Ontario Court of Appeal allowed an anti-SLAPP appeal, dismissed a $2.5 million defamation counterclaim, and awarded damages and costs to the appellant.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an anti-SLAPP appeal in a defamation case, finding the impugned post did not reasonably identify the appellant.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal: the motion judge correctly found the challenged communications related to a matter of public interest, correctly applied the 'grounds to believe' evidentiary standard and permissibly concluded the appellant failed to show both that his claims had substantial merit and that the respondents had no valid defences (including absolute privilege for LSO complaint and justification/fair comment/qualified privilege for the email and FAQ); the motion judge did not err in the discretionary weighing under s.137.1(4)(b) where the appellant failed to establish cauâŚ
Source excerpt
Although the motion judge erred by not considering the public interest in protecting the appellants' postâmeeting speech, the record nonetheless provided grounds to believe the respondent's defamation claim had substantial merit, the appellants lacked reasonable prospects of succeeding on defences (justification, fair comment, qualified privilege) because the Board Chair attributed statements to the respondent she did not make and acted with at least reckless indifference to the truth, and the likelihood and seriousness of reputational harm to the respondent outweighed the public interest inâŚ
Source excerpt
The motion judge correctly applied the governing law under s.137.1(3) and, on a contextual and objective review of the pleadings and record, reasonably concluded the appellants' expressions were primarily about private property interests between neighbouring landowners (tree protection and related disputes) and therefore did not "relate to" a matter of public interest; the appellate court defers to that factual/contextual determination and dismisses the appeal.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed the Dawson defendantsâ anti-SLAPP and Rule 9-6 applications in a defamation case, finding no evidence they made the expression and that summary dismissal was premature.
The appeals are dismissed because the motion judge correctly applied the s.137.1 framework and his conclusions that defendants met their initial onus, that plaintiffs failed to show no valid defence (notably responsible journalism was available to Al Jazeera) and failed to lead evidence of harm sufficient to outweigh the public interest in expression were entitled to deference; however the motion judge provided insufficient reasons for departing from the statutory presumption of full indemnity costs so the cross-appeals on costs succeed and full indemnity costs are awarded to the respondentsâŚ
Source excerpt
Explore more
