Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited v. Eaton Equipment Ltd., 2024 ONCA 25 (CanLII)
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a Judge who dismissed an antislapp motion The motion judge ruled that the appellants had not discharged the threshold onus under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 (“CJA”), concluding that they failed to show that Canadian Tire’s action arose from an expression made by any of the appellants.
[7] He found that the claim as pleaded by Canadian Tire and the underlying facts are “not premised or grounded on any expressions made by the Milburn Defendants or any other defendant. Canadian Tire’s claim does not target an expression made by any of the defendants.” In reaching this conclusion, the motion judge adopted the approach articulated in Schwartz et al. v. Collette, 2021 ONSC 2138, determining that motive for bringing a proceeding is not a relevant consideration at the threshold stage of analysis on a motion under s. 137.1 of the CJA.
The Court of Appeal further stated [12] SLAPP motions were intended to be a relatively summary procedure, designed to weed out unmeritorious actions that target expressions on matters of public interest. However, they have proven to be an unwieldly, expensive, and time-consuming remedy. We decline to contribute further to that problem by expanding the threshold test to include an investigation of a plaintiff’s motive in commencing litigation and consideration of factors that would apply had the motion passed the threshold stage.