It is not uncommon for corporations or wealthy individuals to commence defamation lawsuits against individuals over allegedly defamatory remarks published to third parties, seeking hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage for alleged reputational harm.
With the advent of the internet, it has also become increasingly common for wealthy parties to sue individuals in jurisdictions far removed from their own for defamatory online messages published in that jurisdiction.
However, it is critical for the parties commencing these actions to be keenly aware of the existence, as well as the details, of the Anti-SLAPP legislation in the jurisdictions they will be litigating in.
Anti-SLAPP legislation, as the name suggest, are legislated responses against “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” or SLAPP suits, which are essentially defamation lawsuits found by the court to be an attempt to silence or intimidate a critic. The scope and coverage of these statues vary across the different provinces and states in North America, with some jurisdictions offering robust defendant favoured protection, whilst others offering none or minimal protection.
In Ontario for example, once an Anti-SLAPP motion is brought, the Plaintiff (now responding party) cannot even attempt to discontinue its action to avoid the prohibitive legal fees associated with the motion. This was the result for a Quebec based employer-plaintiff who sued its ex-employee over messages sent by the employee to third parties complaining of unfair labour practices and discrimination issues in Contrans Tank Group GP Inc. v. Chen, 2024 ONSC 5441.
After the Defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion to respond to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Plaintiff attempted to back out of the lawsuit and discontinue the action. However, as confirmed by the Court in this case, that attempt is disallowed by the Ontario Anti-SLAPP legislation. In the end, the Plaintiff had to fully indemnify the legal fees and related costs of the Defendant for the motion, as well as pay $5,000.00 dollars in punitive damages.
This is a cautionary tale for Plaintiffs commencing defamation lawsuits in jurisdictions unfamiliar to them.