Court File and Parties
CITATION: The Estate of Colombe Quesnel v. G. Quesnel et al. 2025 ONSC 3497
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: The Estate of Colombe Quesnel, Plaintiff
AND:
Quesnel et al., Defendant /Third Parties
BEFORE: Justice M. Flaherty
COUNSELS: Counsel, for the Plaintiff – No one appearing Counsel, for the Defendants- D. Girlando and T. Hewitt Counsel, for the Third Parties- No one appearing for the Third Party, Mireille Bray D. Morin-Pelletier and Y. Atif- for Normand Quesnel and Rachelle Paquette J. Roque- for the Third Party, Marc Quesnel No one appearing for Claude Quesnel and Guy Quesnel
READ: June 11, 2025
ENDORSEMENT ON COSTS
1Gilles Quesnel filed an action in defamation against his six siblings (“Action”). Three of those siblings, Marc, Rachelle, and Normand brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 (“CJA”). They sought to have the Action dismissed against them because they said it was a strategic lawsuit against public participation ("SLAPP"). The Estate and the remaining siblings did not participate in the motion.
2The motion proceeded as a bilingual hearing on February 19, 2025. In my reasons for judgement dated March 6, 2025, I held that the Action was not a SLAPP and I dismissed the motion.
3The parties were unable to agree on the costs of the motion and provided written submissions on this issue. Counsel for Gilles sought costs in the amount of $100,000, which he submits is appropriate given his success on the motion, the significance and complexity of the litigation, as well as Gilles’ personal economic circumstances.
4Counsel for the two unsuccessful parties submit that no costs should be ordered or, alternatively, that costs should be awarded in the cause. In any event, they submit that costs of $100,000 is excessive.
5Under article 137.1(8) of the CJA, the default position is that a responding party who succeeds on a SLAPP motion is not entitled to costs, “unless the judge determines that such an award is appropriate in the circumstances.”
6In Sokoloff v. Tru-Path Occupational Therapy Service Inc, the Court of Appeal provided guidance regarding costs awards in SLAPP motions. It explained that, although every case is different, an award of costs may be easier to justify in cases where the moving party’s assertion of public interest is wholly lacking in merit: 2020 ONCA 730 paras. 45 – 47. Further, in Veneruzzo v. Storey, 2018 ONCA 688 at para. 39, the Court of Appeal explained that the costs provisions at s.137.1 are designed to ease the financial burden and risk placed on the defendant who seeks an early termination of what it claims is a SLAPP. However, the purpose of the costs provision is s.137.1 disappears when the lawsuit has none of the characteristics of a SLAPP and the impugned expression is unrelated to a matter of public interest.
7Costs must also be proportional. Given the screening purpose of anti-SLAPP motions, where costs are awarded, they should not generally exceed $50,000: Park Lawn Corporation v. Kahu Capital Partners Ltd., 2023 ONCA 129.
8In the case at hand, the moving parties were wholly unsuccessful in their motion. None of the traditional SLAPP indicia were present. I held that Gilles did not bring the lawsuit for any improper purpose and that there was no merit to the moving parties’ s. 137.1 arguments. These factors are relevant as I consider whether to exercise my discretion under s. 137.1(8): Veneruzzo, at para. 40.
9Moreover, one of the key aspects of the impugned expression – an email that was widely distributed by the moving parties -- was unrelated to the public interest. Although the responding parties’ assertion of public interest was not otherwise wholly without merit, it is relevant that only some of the expression was found to relate to the public interest. Importantly, there were grounds to believe that those communications were motivated by malice.
10In these circumstances, costs are warranted. The purpose of the cost provisions at s.137.1 is not engaged. In this case, it was not the initial lawsuit challenging the expression that represents a potential misuse of the litigation process. Denying the successful party its costs on this motion could be seen as encouraging meritless s. 137.1 motions.
11In considering the quantum of damages, I note that the motion was relatively complex: it involved multiple parties and the cross-examination of six witnesses. However, keeping in mind principles of proportionality, the screening purpose of anti-SLAPP, the discreet nature of the inquiry under s.137.1, I find that costs in the amount of $50,000 are appropriate in this case. I am not satisfied that the cost award in this case should exceed the guideline provided for these matters by the Court of Appeal.
12Costs in the amount of $25,000 are ordered against Marc Quesnel. Costs in the amount of $25,000 are ordered against Normand Quesnel and Rachelle Paquette, jointly and severally. Costs are payable within 60 days.
13This matter is a bilingual proceeding. Any party may request that this award be translated.
Justice Flaherty
Date: June 11, 2025
CITATION: THE ESTATE OF COLOMBE QUESNEL v. G. QUESNEL et al. 2025 ONSC 3497
COURT FILE NO.: CV 20-00000029-00A1
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN: THE ESTATE OF COLOMBE QUESNEL v. G. QUESNEL et al.
ENDORSEMENT ON COSTS
Justice M. Flaherty
Released: June 11, 2025