A. Matas

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $51,185.65 after successfully defending against the defendant's anti-SLAPP motion.

The court considered section 137.1(8) of the Courts of Justice Act, which presumes no costs for a responding party unless the motion was frivolous or unmeritorious.

Given the divided success on the underlying motion, the court found the anti-SLAPP motion was not frivolous and declined to depart from the statutory presumption.

The plaintiff's request for costs was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss an action brought by the plaintiff, an anti-abortion organization.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant led an online campaign of harassment and defamation against it via TikTok videos, encouraging false sign-ups for prayer vigils and shopping cart abandonment.

The court found that while the expression related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff's claims for defamation, internet harassment, and civil conspiracy had substantial merit.

The court concluded that the harm suffered by the plaintiff outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendant's expression, which was aimed at disrupting the plaintiff's activities rather than engaging in public debate.

The motion to dismiss was denied.