Case information

Judgments and orders — Summary judgment — Anti SLAPP legislation — Torts — Libel and slander —Applicant’s libel action against respondent dismissed pursuant to s. 137.1 of Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C 43 for use of litigation to shut down public debate — Whether s. 137.1 should be interpreted such that person defamed by expression made by person that relates to matter of public interest, must show evidence of financial harm to avoid action being dismissed — Whether harm to person’s reputation is sufficiently serious that public interest in permitting proceeding to continue outweighs public interest in protecting expression — Should other jurisdictions in Canada draft anti SLAPP legislation such that balancing of interests includes determination that harm to person’s reputation may sufficiently serious that public interest in permitting proceeding to continue outweighs public interest in protecting that expression? — Should interpretation of s. 137.1 alter effect of longstanding principles in defamation cases? — Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to correctly interpret and apply principles of law regarding impact of defamatory statements made on internet to person’s reputation? — Whether clarification of law necessary in light of conflicting decisions from court below

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

United Soils Management Ltd. provides site remediation, excavation and special materials disposal services and operates a gravel pit near Stouffville. In August 2016, the Whitchurch Stouffville Town Council approved an amendment to United’s license, allowing it to dump material collected from small quantity sites and from hydro vac trucks. There was concern expressed by two members of the Town Council that the amendment permitted the dumping of material that could compromise the long term integrity of the local water supply. Ms. Mohammed shared this concern and posted and commented on two private Facebook group pages over about a three-day period. She referred to the dumping of the material from the hydro vac trucks into the gravel pit site as potentially “poisoning our children”. A few days later, Ms. Mohammed received a letter from United’s lawyer demanding an immediate retraction and apology. On the same day, Ms. Mohammed deleted the word “poison” from the Facebook postings and added a comment to each post retracting her “defamatory and slanderous statements”. She also apologized. She then received United’s statement of claim alleging libel and seeking damages of $100,000, aggravated damages of $10,000; punitive damages of $10,000; special damages; and costs on a substantial indemnity basis. Ms. Mohammed brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 for an order dismissing the action.