October 17, 2024
Because of this, on Anti- SLAPP motions, emphasis is often placed upon whether statement under attack is a matter of public interest.
THE CASE
In 40 Days for Life v. Dietrich the Ontario Court of Appeal has drawn attention to the requirement that a judge hearing an “Anti-SLAPP” motion includes at the final step, a weighing of the public interest in free expression with the harm to the Plaintiff. That raises questions as to whether:
- the primary purpose of the action is to silence the Defendant.
- the harm suffered by the Plaintiff was sufficiently serious that the public interest in allowing the Plaintiff to vindicate its legal rights outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression.
- the motion judge has the “ability to scrutinize what is really going on in the particular case before them” and consider all relevant factors.
In this case, the motions judge had determined that there was not significant public interest in protecting the kind of expression in issue. Thus, the Plaintiff’s interest was more important. The action was allowed to proceed.
The Court of Appeal agreed.
TAKEAWAYS
- The emphasis on the question of balancing conflicting interests has developed significantly as a result of this case.
- Courts will be cautious to not prevent actions from proceeding where it is fair that they do so.
- Whichever side of an Anti-SLAPP motion you are on, you need a skillful advocate on your side.
WHAT WEILERS LLP CAN DO TO HELP YOU
At Weilers LLP, we understand the law and, more importantly, understand the art of advocacy necessary to present your case to the court in the best possible manner. We will ensure that the judge appreciates the weight of public interest, and balance that with the Plaintiff’s interest.
We are not afraid of hard cases. We like a challenge. If you value efficiency and effectiveness, Weilers LLP may be the right lawyers for you.