The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld a decision dismissing an anti-SLAPP motion and allowing a defamation action to continue, reinforcing that serious allegations of corruption and bribery made on social media may expose individuals to liability where a viable claim exists.
In Solmar Inc. v. Hall, 2025 ONCA 367, a retiree posted comments in a public Niagara-on-the-Lake Facebook group concerning a proposed development project. The posts accused the developer and its principal of engaging in corrupt conduct, including bribing public officials and using litigation tactics to intimidate opponents.
The defendants sought to have the action dismissed under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP legislation, arguing that the lawsuit improperly targeted their participation in a matter of public interest. Both the motion judge and the Court of Appeal rejected that argument.
The Court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated substantial merit in its defamation claim. Applying the objective reasonable reader test, the Court concluded that the Facebook posts could reasonably be understood as alleging bribery-based corruption. Although some of the statements were framed as questions, the broader context supported the conclusion that they functioned as accusations rather than neutral inquiries.
The defendants also relied on the defence of fair comment. The Court clarified that “fairness” is not a separate element of the defence and noted that the motion judge had erred by importing such a requirement into the analysis. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that the defence was unavailable at this stage because the impugned statements could reasonably be viewed as assertions of fact rather than expressions of opinion.
The Court further held that there was a sufficient basis in the record to support allegations of malice. Evidence suggesting recklessness as to the truth of the allegations, together with an apparent desire to harm the plaintiff’s reputation, was enough to defeat the defence for the purposes of the motion.
Finally, the Court accepted that the plaintiff could suffer significant reputational and business harm if the allegations were believed, particularly given the public nature of the posts and their potential impact on future municipal approvals. The evidence supported a legitimate objective of reputational vindication, rather than an attempt to silence public participation.
The decision serves as a reminder that while anti-SLAPP legislation provides important protection for public-interest expression, it does not shield unfounded allegations of serious misconduct from judicial scrutiny.