On an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, the moving defendants sought dismissal of claims arising from allegations of intimate partner abuse, reports to police, communications with a municipal supervisor, social media posts, and confidential letters sent to public officials and others.
The court held that the impugned expressions related to matters of public interest because they concerned allegations of abuse involving a person responsible for a public initiative addressing violence against women.
The plaintiff established substantial merit only for defamation, while the other pleaded torts lacked a real prospect of success; however, most impugned expressions were protected by valid defences, principally qualified privilege.
Even where some expressions arguably lacked a valid defence, the plaintiff failed on the s. 137.1(4)(b) weighing exercise because the demonstrated harm was comparatively modest and the public interest in protecting reporting and advocacy concerning intimate partner violence was strong.
The action was dismissed against the moving defendants.
