This appeal concerned an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.
The appellant, a medical resident, sued an investigation firm and its investigator for defamation based on executive summaries of a workplace harassment investigation.
The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the summaries related to a matter of public interest, were protected by qualified privilege, and lacked evidence of malice.
The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, confirming that the expressions related to public interest due to the nature of the educational institution, media attention, and public safety concerns, and were protected by qualified privilege.
