Four months after the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) ruled on the test for Ontario's anti-SLAPP legislation, the Ontario Court of Appeal (OCA) has released two companion decisions overturning a motion judge's pre-SCC rulings, and shedding light on how the SCC's guidance in 1704604 Ontario Ltd. v. Pointes Protection Association (Pointes) and Platnick v. Bent (Bent) has refined the anti-SLAPP analysis.
THE LEGISLATION
Sections 137.1-137.5 of the Courts of Justice Act, dubbed Ontario's "anti-SLAPP" legislation because they are aimed at "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation", allow a defendant to move at any stage in a proceeding to have the claim dismissed. If the defendant can show that the lawsuit arises from "expression" that relates to "a matter of public interest" (both defined broadly), the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate grounds to believe that: (1) the action has "substantial merit;" (2) there is "no valid defence to the proceeding" (together, Merit-Based Hurdle); and that (3) the harm caused by the expression is "sufficiently serious" that the public interest in continuing with the action outweighs the public interest in protecting the expression (Public Interest Balancing Test). If the plaintiff fails to discharge this burden, its claim must be dismissed.
THE BACKGROUND
A 2017 episode of
CBC's Marketplace reported that Subway's
chicken products could contain just 50 per cent chicken DNA and the
rest soy, based on testing conducted by Trent University. The
reporting was also published on CBC's website and on Twitter. A
CBC follow-up article a week later referred to Subway's test
results indicating its chicken contains only 1 per cent soy, and
noted DNA testing is "nuanced".
Subway sued CBC and Trent in defamation, and sued Trent for
negligence in its testing, seeking C$210-million in damages for
loss of reputation, loss of sales, and damage to Subway's
trademarks. Invoking Ontario's anti-SLAPP law, CBC moved for
early dismissal of Subway's action in defamation, and Trent
moved to dismiss Subway's action in negligence.
CBC'S MOTION
The motion judge held that CBC met the initial threshold as the
claim clearly arose from expression related to a matter of public
interest. Moving to the Merit-Based Hurdle, while Subway's
claim had a real prospect of success, he held that Subway had not
established grounds to believe that CBC had no valid defence of
responsible communication on a matter of public interest. This
defence requires that reasonable diligence be exercised in trying
to verify the allegations on a matter of public interest, and
provides a defence in those circumstances even if the allegations
cannot ultimately be proven true. Finding that CBC "made
significant efforts to inquire into the veracity of the tests they
were reporting", the motion judge held that a reasonable trier
"could not reasonably conclude...that CBC's defence of
responsible communication would not succeed."
At the Public Interest Balancing Test, the motion judge held that
CBC's reporting was consistent with the purposes of the
anti-SLAPP law (to encourage and promote expression and
participation in matters of public interest). After noting apparent
conflicts within Subway's evidence as to damages, he held that
the public interest in the expression outweighed the potential
impact on Subway.
SUBWAY'S APPEAL
The OCA held that the motion judge had applied too high a
standard to the question of whether there were grounds to believe
that CBC had a valid defence. Following the SCC's lead
in Pointes and Bent, a plaintiff
need only demonstrate that "there
is a basis in the record and the law –
taking into account the stage of the proceedings – to support
a finding that the defences...do not tend to
weigh more in [the defendant's]
favour". In other words, for the purposes of an anti-SLAPP
motion, a defence that "could go either way" should
proceed to trial.
In considering CBC's responsible communication defence, the OCA
did not make a decision on the merits. Rather, in deciding that the
matter should proceed to trial, the Court considered factors such
as the high degree of due diligence required given the seriousness
of the allegations and the existence of Subway's expert opinion
evidence of flaws in the original testing. The Court concluded that
there was a basis in the record to support a finding, at this stage
of the proceeding, that the defence did not tend to
weigh more in CBC's favour.
At the Public Interest Balancing Test, the OCA held the motion
judge had erred in law in assessing Subway's damages claim,
"as though he were the trial judge", and had failed to
appreciate the likelihood that Subway suffered significant
reputational and financial harm. The OCA also considered
the absence of indicia of a SLAPP suit, citing
"no evidence of ulterior motive, abuse of power or other
improper purpose". Public interest favoured allowing
Subway's claim to proceed.
TRENT'S MOTION AND APPEAL
The motion judge had held that Trent's motion failed the
initial threshold, as Subway's negligence claim did not arise
from expression. He noted that the anti-SLAPP law is "focused
on freedom of expression" and was "designed to address
expressive torts, not wrongdoing at large."
The OCA disagreed, finding that the motion judge had erred in
limiting the anti-SLAPP law to a category of "expressive
torts". Rather, expression must only be "somehow causally
related to the proceeding". Here, the Court said, the motion
judge failed to appreciate that the expression of the test results
was central to Subway's negligence claim.
However, under the Merit-Based Hurdle, the OCA held that Trent did
not owe Subway a duty of care. Accordingly, Subway's claim
lacked a real prospect of success, was not legally tenable, and was
dismissed.
IMPLICATIONS
These decisions represent an early appellate court interpretation of the SCC decisions in Pointes and Bent. Among other things, they highlight the inherent tensions between the limited weighing of evidence permitted on an anti-SLAPP motion and the need to consider multiple, evidence-based factors in assessing certain defamation defences. The recently dismissed defamation lawsuit by former interim Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police Brad Blair against Premier Doug Ford, following a successful anti-SLAPP motion by Premier Ford, will be one to keep an eye on at the Court of Appeal.
For permission to reprint articles, please contact the bulletin@blakes.com Marketing Department.
© 2025 Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
