Iain MacKinnon

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to discontinue its defamation action.

The defendant argued that his intended anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act triggered an automatic stay, precluding the plaintiff's motion as a 'further step'.

The court held that the anti-SLAPP motion had not yet been 'made' as it had not been served.

Furthermore, relying on appellate authority, the court found that a motion to discontinue is not a prohibited 'step' under s. 137.1(5), as it achieves the anti-SLAPP goal of terminating the proceeding efficiently.

The court ordered the plaintiff's motion for leave to discontinue to be heard first.

The defendant, a blogger reporting on municipal affairs, brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

The plaintiff, a former municipal administrator, sued over blog posts alleging he was dishonest and incompetent.

The court found the posts related to a matter of public interest but concluded the defamation claim had substantial merit and the defendant's defences could reasonably be rejected.

The court held that the harm to the plaintiff's reputation and employability outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression, and dismissed the motion.

The applicants, a media organization and its reporter, sought to revoke or stay the enforcement of a production order compelling them to turn over communications with an alleged ISIS recruiter.

The Supreme Court of Canada had previously upheld the validity of the order.

The applicants argued that recent reports from CENTCOM indicating the target was killed in an airstrike rendered the order moot and its enforcement an abuse of process.

The Superior Court held that the applicants were estopped from relitigating the order's validity.

Furthermore, the court found that because the RCMP had been unable to independently verify the target's death, their decision to continue the investigation and enforce the order was reasonable and did not constitute an abuse of process.