William McDowell

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action arising from a podcast about a charitable organization and the plaintiff's family.

The court found that the podcast's repetition of allegations regarding the plaintiff's handling of charitable funds had substantial merit and no valid defence of responsible communication or fair comment for the host and media company.

However, the court found that the guest journalist had a valid defence of fair comment regarding her statements about a prior settlement.

The motion was dismissed for the host and media company, allowing the action to proceed against them, but granted for the guest journalist, dismissing the action against her.

The court determined costs following two anti-SLAPP motions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The defendant broadcaster, having successfully dismissed the defamation claim against it, was awarded costs on a full indemnity basis, though the requested amount was reduced to $500,000 plus disbursements due to the motion's excessive complexity.

The plaintiff, having successfully defeated the defendant university's novel anti-SLAPP motion regarding a negligence claim, was awarded partial indemnity costs of $222,000, as the university's motion lacked the characteristics of a true SLAPP suit.

The defendants, CBC and Trent University, brought anti-SLAPP motions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiffs' $210 million defamation and negligence action.

The action arose from a Marketplace report alleging the plaintiffs' chicken sandwiches contained only 50% chicken based on DNA tests conducted by Trent University.

The court granted CBC's motion, finding that while the defamation claim had substantial merit, CBC had a valid defence of responsible communication and the public interest in protecting investigative journalism outweighed the plaintiffs' private harm.

The court dismissed Trent University's motion, holding that the negligence claim regarding faulty laboratory testing did not arise from an expression relating to a matter of public interest and was therefore not subject to dismissal under the anti-SLAPP provisions.