S.L.A.P.P Lawsuits: Difference between revisions
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
::The purpose of the statute is to expand the democratic benefits of broad participation in public affairs and to reduce the risk that such participation will be unduly hampered by fear of legal action. It would seek to accomplish these purposes by encouraging the responsible exercise of free expression by members of the public on matters of public interest and by discouraging litigation and related legal conduct that interferes unduly with such expression. | ::The purpose of the statute is to expand the democratic benefits of broad participation in public affairs and to reduce the risk that such participation will be unduly hampered by fear of legal action. It would seek to accomplish these purposes by encouraging the responsible exercise of free expression by members of the public on matters of public interest and by discouraging litigation and related legal conduct that interferes unduly with such expression. | ||
[7] The anti-SLAPP provisions are not meant to create a forum in which to review the entire evidence that one or both of the parties would bring to bear if the merits of the law suit were being adjudicated. As the Court of Appeal put it in 1704604 Ontario Ltd. v Pointes Protection Association, 2018 ONCA 685, para 78, “if…the motion record raises serious questions about the credibility of affiants and the inferences to be drawn from competing primary facts, the motion judge must avoid taking a ‘deep dive’ into the ultimate merits of the claim under the guise of the much more limited merits analysis required by s. 137.1(4)(a).” | |||
Revision as of 05:23, 25 March 2020
Subway v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2020 ONSC 1263 (CanLII)
[1] This case arises from the February 24, 2017 broadcast of an investigative report on the show Marketplace (the “Marketplace Report”), created, aired, and published online by the Defendant, Canadian Broadcast Corporation and its employees the Defendants, Charlsie Agro, Kathleen Coughlin, Eric Szeto (collectively “CBC”). The subject matter of the Marketplace Report was a comparison of the chicken sandwiches sold by the Plaintiffs (collectively “Subway”) and four other fast food chains in Canada.
[5] Broadly speaking, section 137.1 of the CJA is designed to protect free expression in the face of a libel or similar action aimed at matters of public interest:
- The purpose of the statute is to expand the democratic benefits of broad participation in public affairs and to reduce the risk that such participation will be unduly hampered by fear of legal action. It would seek to accomplish these purposes by encouraging the responsible exercise of free expression by members of the public on matters of public interest and by discouraging litigation and related legal conduct that interferes unduly with such expression.
[7] The anti-SLAPP provisions are not meant to create a forum in which to review the entire evidence that one or both of the parties would bring to bear if the merits of the law suit were being adjudicated. As the Court of Appeal put it in 1704604 Ontario Ltd. v Pointes Protection Association, 2018 ONCA 685, para 78, “if…the motion record raises serious questions about the credibility of affiants and the inferences to be drawn from competing primary facts, the motion judge must avoid taking a ‘deep dive’ into the ultimate merits of the claim under the guise of the much more limited merits analysis required by s. 137.1(4)(a).”
