Case information

Courts — Dismissal of proceeding that limits debate — Freedom of expression — Matters of public interest — Proper interpretation and application of Ontario’s framework for dismissal of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) — Applicant suing respondent for defamation — Respondent moving for dismissal of lawsuit as a SLAPP — Should every claim against a public official “relate” to a matter of “public interest”?

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.

Ms. Rea is a city councillor. Mr. Zeppa is a developer who sought to develop a parcel of land into a subdivision of homes. Ms. Rea voted against the development. There was evidence before the motion judge that Ms. Rea’s continued opposition to the development caused Mr. Zeppa to become frustrated. This led to an incident at a bar where words were exchanged. Mr. Zeppa became aware that the matter was reported to the police by Ms. Rea. Mr. Zeppa commenced an action against Ms. Rea seeking $1.1 million in damages for “false and slanderous statements”. Next, Mr. Zeppa served a fresh amended statement of claim increasing his damages claim by $10 million for: breach of fiduciary duty, interference with economic relations, misfeasance in public office, and champerty. Ms. Rea brought a motion, pursuant to s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 43, to dismiss Mr. Zeppa’s action. Her motion was dismissed by the motion judge. The Court of Appeal allowed Ms. Rea’s appeal. Having concluded that the expression at issue was on a matter of public interest, the Court of Appeal found that Ms. Rea has satisfied her onus under s. 137.1(3). Since the motion judge did not consider the factors under s. 137.1(4), the matter is remitted back to a different judge to consider and rule on those factors.