Court of Appeal for Ontario
Date: 20210629 Docket: C68341
Tulloch, Roberts and Thorburn JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Michele Di Franco Plaintiff (Respondent)
and
Michael Bueckert Defendant (Appellant)
Counsel: Daniel S. Tucker-Simmons and Yavar Hameed, for the appellant Jean-François Lalonde, for the respondent
Heard and delivered orally: June 18, 2021 by video conference
On appeal from the order of Justice Sally A. Gomery of the Superior Court of Justice dated March 30, 2020, with reasons reported at 2020 ONSC 1954.
Reasons for Decision
[1] We see no error in the motion judge’s dismissal of the appellant’s Anti‑SLAAP motion. Even though she did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s decision in 1704604 Ontario Ltd. v. Pointes Protection Association, 2020 SCC 22, the motion judge’s application of the relevant factors and the limited weighing of the evidence that she was required to carry out under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, are not inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s articulated framework in Pointes.
[2] We also see no error in the motion judge’s consideration of the evidence on the record before her. As the motion judge indicated, she was not to engage in a deep dive into the record and make definitive findings of fact and credibility on this early-stage motion, which should be left to a summary judgment motion or trial. She was satisfied that the respondent had met his onus under s. 137.1(4); her decision is supported by the record. She did everything she was required to do on this threshold motion.
[3] There is no basis for appellate intervention. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.
[4] As agreed, the respondent is entitled to his costs of the appeal of $15,915.00, all inclusive. With respect to the appellant’s abandoned motion, we order that there be no costs, since we view the results as being mixed.
“M. Tulloch J.A.”
“L.B. Roberts J.A.”
“J.A. Thorburn J.A.”