Case information

Courts — Dismissal of proceeding that limits debate — Defamation — Conspiracy — Internet harassment — Public interest weighing exercise — Valid defence — Fair comment — Ontario framework for dismissal of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) — Whether an “all or nothing” approach undermines the purpose of the anti-SLAPP regime — Whether there is significant public interest in protecting speech that encourages peaceful protest on issues of public importance — Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 43, s. 137.1.

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.

Courts — Dismissal of proceeding that limits debate — Defamation — Conspiracy — Internet harassment — Public interest weighing exercise — Valid defence — Fair comment — Ontario framework for dismissal of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) — Whether an “all or nothing” approach undermines the purpose of the anti-SLAPP regime — Whether there is significant public interest in protecting speech that encourages peaceful protest on issues of public importance — Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 43, s. 137.1.

This case involves an alleged campaign of online harassment and defamation by Ms. Dietrich against 40 Days for Life (“40 Days”), an international pro-life organization, in October 2021, coinciding with its Fall prayer vigils. 40 Days’ claim against Ms. Dietrich focuses on a series of TikTok videos related to abortion protesting, or 40 Days, or both, that Ms. Dietrich posted. 40 Days obtained an injunction against Ms. Dietrich and other unnamed defendants. 40 Days then brought proceedings seeking damages for defamation, internet harassment, fraud, breach of contract, inducing breach of contract, and civil conspiracy. Ms. Dietrich then brought a motion to have the 40 Days’ proceeding dismissed pursuant to s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 43. The motion judge dismissed Ms. Dietrich’s s. 137.1 motion, finding that the underlying action related to a matter of public interest, that some of 40 Days’ claims had substantial merit and no valid defence, and that the harm suffered by 40 Days from Ms. Dietrich’s expression was sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighed the public interest in protecting that expression. The motion judge did, however, dismiss 40 Days’ claims based in contract and fraud, and 40 Days did not appeal those findings. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.