The plaintiff brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim, arguing it was a SLAPP intended to silence his allegations of a poisoned workplace.
The plaintiff also moved to strike the counterclaim under the Rules of Civil Procedure, amend his statement of claim, and for summary judgment.
The court dismissed the anti-SLAPP motion, finding the plaintiff failed to show the counterclaim arose from his expressions.
The court also denied leave to amend the statement of claim as the proposed claim for deferred bonuses was statute-barred.
The remaining motions were deferred pursuant to the mandatory stay in s. 137.1(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.