R. Galati

The plaintiff, a lawyer representing advocacy groups in COVID-19 related litigation, brought an action for defamation, abuse of process, civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and harassment against the defendants.

The defendants moved under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action as a SLAPP.

The court found that the impugned expressions, which criticized the plaintiff's legal approach and fees, related to matters of public interest.

The plaintiff failed to show that his claims had substantial merit or that the defendants lacked valid defences such as justification, fair comment, and absolute/qualified privilege.

The court concluded that the public interest in protecting the expression outweighed any unproven harm to the plaintiff and dismissed the action in its entirety.

A young person appealed convictions and sentence arising from participation in forcing the complainant into a washroom where a sexual assault occurred.

The appellant argued that the trial judge applied unequal credibility analysis, misapplied the R. v. W.(D.) reasonable doubt framework, and demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appeal court reviewed the trial record and found the trial judge properly assessed credibility, including rejecting the appellant’s evidence in light of corroboration from another participant and the complainant’s consistent account.

The court held the trial judge correctly applied the W.(D.) framework and did not reverse the onus or display bias.

Both conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.