2 total
The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of an anti-SLAPP motion regarding a private spousal communication and denied the self-represented respondent's cross-appeal for costs.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal from the motion judge’s order dismissing an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.
The court found that the expression at issue—a private comment between spouses—did not relate to a matter of public interest.
The court also denied leave to appeal the motion judge’s costs order, upholding the finding that the self-represented respondent had not established a basis for costs.
The decision affirms the high threshold for overturning discretionary costs decisions and clarifies the application of the public interest requirement in anti-SLAPP proceedings.
Dismissal for delay was set aside because an unserved order removing counsel was legally ineffective.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal of Herbert and Jacqueline Watkins, setting aside the order dismissing their action and the associated costs order.
The motion judge had dismissed the action for failure to appoint counsel or deliver a notice of intent to act in person under r. 15.04(8) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and for delay under r. 24.01.
The Court of Appeal found that the removal order for the appellants' counsel was not effective, as it was not properly served, and that the motion judge erred in relying on r. 15.04(8).
The finding of inordinate and inexcusable delay was also found to be unreasonable due to confusion over representation.
Costs of the appeal were awarded to the appellants.
