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
Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a s. 137.1 dismissal, holding the action failed at the substantial-merit stage and the costs award stood.
Although the impugned Video related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiffs met the s.4(2) PPPA threshold by establishing grounds to believe their defamation claim has substantial merit and that the defendants have no valid defence given material omissions, lack of investigative diligence, and evidence supporting malice (attempted quid pro quo, failure to contact head office, reposting after injunction); on balance the public interest favors allowing the claim to proceed, therefore the s.4 dismissal application is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Application to strike the defendant's Response is dismissed because, assuming the truth of pleaded facts, the Response is not plainly and obviously devoid of reasonable defences; the pleaded contextual facts are capable of supporting defences of fair comment, qualified privilege and responsible communication, and discovery and malice issues are matters for trial or separate process.
Source excerpt
The defendant's impugned council and public statements were expressions on matters of public interest; there are grounds to believe the defence of qualified privilege is available for those communications and it was not defeated by malice on the record; the plaintiff therefore has not established there are grounds to believe the defendant has no valid defence, and the public interest in protecting political expression outweighs the asserted harm, so the action is dismissed under s.4(2) PPPA.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed a PPPA anti-SLAPP application in a defamation dispute over Facebook posts about the Stave Gardens Community Association.
British Columbia Supreme Court judgment on libel, easement obstruction and nuisance claims arising from neighbour disputes in Lions Bay.
Summary judgment in a defamation action was dismissed because unresolved factual disputes about qualified privilege, truth, intent, and credibility required trial.
The court found Robin Bennett liable for defaming Paul Sanderson in an oral remark and a 2017 email, rejected qualified privilege and justification, and awarded $85,000 general damages.
The appeal is dismissed. The motion judge did not err in concluding there were grounds to believe the defamation action had substantial merit and that indicia of malice could defeat the appellants' defences; although the motion judge erred in the balancing analysis under s.137.1(4)(b), a fresh weighing shows the respondents' interest in vindicating reputational rights outweighs the reduced public interest in protecting the appellants' vitriolic and poorly motivated expressions, so the anti‑SLAPP motion was correctly dismissed. Leave to appeal costs denied; appellate costs awarded CAD 25,000 i…
Source excerpt
The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action because, on the admissible and uncontested evidence, there was no genuine issue of material fact and a reasonable, right‑thinking ordinary person in the small, informed audience of firm partners and office manager would not view the March 9, 2021 email as tending to lower the plaintiff's reputation or as highly offensive false light; context and limited publication defeated prima facie defamation.
Source excerpt
Explore more
