Andrew Geray Donaldson

The plaintiff sought summary judgment on a promissory note in the amount of $1,650,000 provided by the defendants as vendor takeback financing for the purchase of the plaintiff's company pursuant to a share purchase agreement.

The defendants are pursuing a separate Ontario action claiming rescission of the share purchase agreement and damages for alleged misrepresentations and non-disclosures.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding it inappropriate to grant judgment on the promissory note while the entire underlying transaction remains in dispute in the related proceeding.

The court ordered that the promissory note claim may be tried together with or consolidated with the defendants' counterclaim, or asserted as a cross-claim in the related action.

This appeal concerns the application of Ontario's anti-SLAPP provision, s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, in a defamation action arising from negative online reviews posted by a client against contractors.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the public interest in the expression outweighed the harm.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred by unduly focusing on SLAPP hallmarks, failing to adequately consider reputational harm, and not qualitatively assessing the value of the respondent's vitriolic expression.

The Court conducted a fresh analysis, concluding that the significant harm to the appellants' professional reputations outweighed the minimal public interest in the malicious and scurrilous statements, reinstating the defamation action.