Anti-SLAPP motions have quietly become one of the most consequential procedural tools in Ontario civil litigation. While they originated as a mechanism to protect freedom of expression, they now surface in a wide range of disputes well beyond defamation, including employment matters, shareholder conflicts, and commercial litigation involving public statements. For litigators who do not regularly deal with reputational claims, they are easy to overlook but increasingly difficult to ignore.
The regime is set out in section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act and allows a defendant to seek early dismissal of a claim arising from expression on a matter of public interest. The threshold for engaging the provision is deliberately low. Courts have interpreted “public interest” broadly, capturing everything from commentary on business practices and professional conduct to online criticism of products and services. Once that threshold is met, the burden shifts quickly and decisively to the plaintiff.
At that point, the plaintiff must do three things, all on an evidentiary record assembled at a very early stage of the case. The claim must have substantial merit, there must be no valid defence, and, most importantly, the harm suffered must be serious enough to outweigh the public interest in protecting the expression. That final weighing exercise is where most motions are decided. It is not enough to assert reputational harm in the abstract. Courts expect evidence of real or at least inferable damage, and they will measure that harm against the value of the speech in question.
Recent appellate authority underscores how carefully courts are now policing the boundaries of the regime. In Benchwood Builders Inc. v. Prescott, 2025 ONCA 171, a contractor sued homeowners over negative online reviews arising from a renovation dispute. Although the defendants initially succeeded on an anti-SLAPP motion, the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the dispute was fundamentally private and did not engage a matter of public interest in any meaningful way. The decision is a useful reminder that not all online speech, even if publicly accessible, attracts anti-SLAPP protection. It also reinforces that courts will not allow the motion to become a default escape route in ordinary commercial disputes dressed up as matters of public interest.
From a strategic standpoint, anti-SLAPP motions change the rhythm of litigation. They are typically brought at the outset and effectively force plaintiffs to front-load their case before discovery has even begun. For defendants, they offer a potential off-ramp and immediate leverage. For plaintiffs, they introduce both risk and urgency, including the possibility of early dismissal and meaningful cost exposure. A successful moving party is presumptively entitled to full indemnity costs, which can be a powerful deterrent against weak or tactical claims.
Although most closely associated with defamation, anti-SLAPP motions are not confined to it. Any claim grounded in speech is a candidate. That includes disputes where communications to customers, employees, investors, or the broader public form part of the factual matrix. The analysis is less about the formal cause of action and more about whether the proceeding seeks to impose liability for expression on a matter that engages the public.
The Supreme Court of Canada has reinforced a broad and purposive approach to the provision, emphasizing both the importance of protecting meaningful expression and the need for a disciplined, evidence-based inquiry at the weighing stage. At the same time, the Court has cautioned that anti-SLAPP motions are not a general substitute for summary judgment. They are a targeted tool designed to screen out proceedings that unduly limit expression.
For litigators outside the defamation bar, the practical takeaway is straightforward. Any case involving public-facing statements now carries an additional layer of procedural risk. Anti-SLAPP is no longer a niche defence; it is a front-end battleground that can determine the life or death of a claim before the action meaningfully begins.