Vanshika Dhawan

The defendant J.T., who was 16 years old at the time, reported to police that the plaintiff had sexually assaulted them four years earlier.

The plaintiff was charged but acquitted after the trial judge found J.T.'s evidence to be fabricated.

The plaintiff subsequently sued J.T. for malicious prosecution.

J.T. brought a motion 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 J.T.'s report to police was an expression on a matter of public interest, and that the malicious prosecution claim lacked substantial merit because J.T. did not initiate the prosecution.

The court also dismissed the police defendants' crossclaim against J.T. and their motion to amend pleadings.

Following a traffic stop for expired registration, police extended the detention and purported to rely on the Cannabis Control Act to question the accused about marijuana in the vehicle and to search the occupants and vehicle.

The court held that the continued detention was arbitrary, that police used the Cannabis Control Act as a pretext for a broader criminal investigation, and that they breached ss. 10(a) and 10(b) by failing to promptly explain the reason for the continued detention and advise of the right to counsel before eliciting incriminating information.

Because the search grounds were obtained through those breaches, the warrantless searches also violated s. 8.

Applying Grant, the court excluded all statements and physical evidence obtained during the stop.

The separate application alleging ss. 7 and 12 breaches arising from custodial treatment was dismissed, and the accused was acquitted on all counts.

The decision addresses an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act in a defamation action brought by Prasanth Tella against A.B., his former partner.

The allegedly defamatory statements were made primarily to the Ottawa Police Service’s Professional Standards Section and to a few other individuals.

The court finds that most of the statements at issue relate to a matter of public interest, but some do not.

The court concludes that the statements made to the Professional Standards Section are protected by absolute privilege and that the plaintiff has not met the burden to show there are no valid defences.

The action is dismissed, with leave to bring a new action regarding certain statements if desired.

The court also grants an anonymity order and a publication ban regarding the defendant’s identity.