Canada Case Law

The Catalyst Capital Group Inc. v. West Face Capital Inc.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The motion judge correctly applied s.137.1: the impugned publications arose from expressions on matters of public interest; his provisional factual findings that some respondents had valid defences and that the public interest in protecting the expressions outweighed the interest in permitting the proceedings to continue were supported by the record and entitled to appellate deference; the unique factual context (including Project Maple Tree and the appellants’ litigation history) justified dismissal of the proceedings on anti‑SLAPP grounds and supported the costs awards. Consequently the Cou…

Source excerpt

• Anti‑slapp s.137.1 courts of justice act
• Responsible communication
• Justification (truth) defence
• Public interest balancing
• Malice
• Partial anti‑slapp motions

Read case analysis

Waterton Global Resource Management, Inc. v. Bockhold

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed the Dawson defendants’ anti-SLAPP and Rule 9-6 applications in a defamation case, finding no evidence they made the expression and that summary dismissal was premature.

• Protection of public participation act s.4
• Supreme court civil rules rule 9-6
• Dismissal for no genuine issue
• Discovery and prematurity
• Costs
• Anti-slapp

Read case analysis

British Columbia Recreation and Parks Association v. Zakharia

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Court found the defendant liable for defamation, trade-mark infringement, passing off, injurious falsehood, and conspiracy, and granted injunctions and damages.

• Free expression limits
• Malice
• Responsible communication
• Justification (truth)
• Fair comment
• Permanent injunctions

Read case analysis

British Columbia Recreation and Parks Association v. Zakharia

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court refused to set aside paragraph 1(f) of an ex parte injunction, holding the defendant had not pleaded facts to support his defences and that interlocutory relief should remain pending trial.

• Interlocutory injunctions
• Ex parte orders
• Preservation of evidence
• Defences: justification, fair comment, responsible communication
• Balance of convenience and irreparable harm
• Interlocutory-injunctions

Read case analysis