Rojin Jazayeri

The defendant, David Franklin, brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (anti-SLAPP legislation) to dismiss an action brought against him by the Mizzi family.

The Mizzi family sued Franklin, his client Michael Cavanagh, and others for intrusion upon seclusion, intentional infliction of mental and emotional suffering, and extortion, alleging that Franklin and Cavanagh hacked emails, created a defamatory website, and made threats.

Franklin argued the action arose from his public comments on a Global News broadcast about a financial scandal, which he contended was a matter of public interest.

The court found that while Franklin's comments were indeed an expression relating to a matter of public interest, the Mizzi family's action did not "arise from" that expression.

Instead, the court determined the action genuinely arose from the alleged intrusion on seclusion and extortion that occurred independently of and prior to the news broadcast.

Consequently, the court dismissed Franklin's motion to dismiss the action, allowing the Mizzi family's claims to proceed to trial on their merits.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the defendant sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that full indemnity was not appropriate because the action was not a SLAPP suit, and instead awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale.

Noting that both parties engaged in an unnecessary 'deep dive' into the evidence, the court fixed the costs at $130,000 all-inclusive, payable in two installments.

The plaintiff, former interim Commissioner of the OPP, brought a defamation action against the Premier of Ontario over public statements alleging the plaintiff breached the Police Services Act.

The defendant moved to dismiss the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendant's expression related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff could not show that the defence of fair comment had no real prospect of success, and the public interest in protecting the expression outweighed the public interest in permitting the action to continue.