Sabrina Joanne Callaway

Two consolidated appeals from motions to dismiss libel actions brought under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (anti-SLAPP provision).

The appellant, a waste management company, sued two individuals for statements made on Facebook regarding concerns about environmental contamination from the company's expanded dumping operations at a gravel pit.

The motion judges dismissed both actions, finding the statements related to matters of public interest and that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the harm suffered was sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting the respondents' freedom of expression.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissals, affirmed damages awards to the respondents, and dismissed the appellant's leave to appeal the costs awards.

Katie Mohammed, a resident of Whitchurch-Stouffville, posted comments on social media expressing concern that an amendment to an agreement between the municipality and United Soils Management Ltd., allowing for the deposition of "acceptable fill" in a gravel pit near a water tower, could lead to groundwater contamination and harm children.

United Soils Management Ltd. sued her for defamation.

Mohammed brought a motion to dismiss the action under anti-SLAPP legislation (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act).

The court found that the plaintiff's action lacked substantial merit, that Mohammed had valid defenses (justification, fair comment, qualified privilege, responsible communication), and that the harm suffered by the plaintiff did not outweigh the public interest in protecting freedom of expression.

The court also found that the plaintiff brought the proceeding in bad faith and for an improper purpose, awarding Mohammed $7,500 in damages.

The plaintiff, United Soils Management Ltd., brought a motion for leave to examine the Mayor of Whitchurch-Stouffville as a non-party witness, pursuant to Rule 39.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

This motion arose within the context of the defendant, Katie Mohammed's, anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation claim under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court considered the plaintiff's diligence in bringing the motion and the discretionary nature of granting leave, noting the legislative intent for anti-SLAPP motions to be summary.

The court found the plaintiff's pattern of interlocutory motions, including this one, to be contrary to the summary nature of anti-SLAPP proceedings and dismissed the motion for leave to examine the Mayor.

The defendant Lenovo brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike the plaintiff's class action claim in its entirety, arguing that none of the advanced causes of action could succeed.

The plaintiff had initially advanced five causes of action: breach of contract, implied condition of merchantability, intrusion upon seclusion, breach of provincial privacy laws, and negligence (the negligence claim was withdrawn).

The court granted the motion in part, striking the breach of contract claim, but dismissed the motion regarding the claims for implied condition of merchantability, intrusion upon seclusion, and breach of provincial privacy laws, finding them arguable and not plain and obvious to fail.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.