The appellant appealed the dismissal of her anti-SLAPP motion regarding a $2.5 million defamation counterclaim brought by her former employer.
The motion judge had found the counterclaim had the hallmarks of a SLAPP and there was no evidence of a causal link between the appellant's expression and the respondents' alleged harm, but allowed the counterclaim to proceed because dismissing it would not meaningfully reduce the scope of the factual inquiry at trial.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that under the Supreme Court's decision in Hansman, the weighing exercise must be tethered to the statutory text, which requires evidence of likely harm and causation.
The overlap between the claim and counterclaim was an impermissible consideration.
The counterclaim was dismissed, and the appellant was awarded $5,000 in statutory damages and costs.
