Daniel S. Tucker-Simmons

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal from a motion judge's decision to dismiss an Anti-SLAAP motion.

The appellate court found no error in the motion judge's application of the relevant factors under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, noting that her approach was consistent with the Supreme Court's framework in 1704604 Ontario Ltd. v. Pointes Protection Association, despite not having the benefit of that decision at the time.

The motion judge correctly limited her evidentiary review to the threshold requirements of the Anti-SLAAP motion, leaving deeper factual findings for later stages.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of an anti-SLAPP motion brought by the defendant, Michael Bueckert, and a cross-motion by the plaintiff, Michele Di Franco, to strike Mr. Bueckert's affidavit.

The court found no reason to depart from the statutory presumption against awarding costs on the anti-SLAPP motion, as it was not frivolous and the expression related to a matter of public interest.

However, on the motion to strike the affidavit, the court awarded Mr. Bueckert $3000 in partial indemnity costs against Mr. Di Franco, after considering factors under Rule 57.01(1) and discounting the amount for work that may have future utility.

Michael Bueckert brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action brought by Michele Di Franco.

Di Franco also brought a cross-motion to strike Bueckert's affidavit.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that Di Franco's defamation claim had substantial merit and Bueckert's defenses of fair comment and justification might not succeed.

The court also found that the harm to Di Franco's reputation, particularly as a law student, was sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting Bueckert's expression, especially given the vitriolic nature of some of the statements.

The applicants, L’association pour l’intégration sociale d’Ottawa (AISO), Annik Méthot, and Marc Richer, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for defamation, punitive damages, and permanent injunctions against the respondent, Marlène Casimir.

Casimir, a former employee of AISO, was dismissed in 2015 and subsequently engaged in a sustained campaign of defamatory statements through public protests, flyers, emails, and Twitter, accusing the applicants of injustice, racism, harassment, and dishonesty.

The court found that Casimir's statements were defamatory and that her defense of justification lacked evidentiary support.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the applicants, awarding general and punitive damages, and a permanent injunction was issued to prevent further dissemination of defamatory content.