The appellant engaged in digital protests against the respondent's anti-abortion vigils by posting videos on social media.
The respondent obtained an interim and then an interlocutory injunction restraining the appellant's online activity, despite the appellant having ceased the activity months prior and having filed an anti-SLAPP motion.
On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the appeal was not stayed by the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.
The court allowed the appeal and quashed the injunctions, finding the motion judge erred by failing to apply the strict test for quia timet injunctions restraining expressive activity and by failing to consider the pending anti-SLAPP motion.
