SLAPP - Pointes Protection - Merits Exception. 1704604 Ontario Ltd. v. Pointes Protection Association
In 1704604 Ontario Ltd. v. Pointes Protection Association (SCC, 2020), the leading case on Ontario's SLAPP laws, the Supreme Court of Canada discusses the merits exception:
 Section 137.1(4) is reproduced for convenience below:
(4) A judge shall not dismiss a proceeding under subsection (3) if the responding party satisfies the judge that, As the text of this provision makes explicit, the burden is on the responding party (i.e. the plaintiff in the underlying proceeding) to satisfy the motion judge of both (a) and (b). Therefore, if either (a) or (b) is not met, then this will be fatal to the plaintiff discharging its burden and, as a consequence, the underlying proceeding will be dismissed. However, if the plaintiff can show that both (a) and (b) are met, then the proceeding will be allowed to continue. While (a) directs a judge’s specific attention to the merit of the proceeding and the existence of a valid defence, (b) is open-endedly concerned with what is at the heart of the legislation at issue and anti-SLAPP legislation generally: the weighing of the public interest in vindicating legitimate claims through the courts against the resulting potential for quelling expression that has already been determined under s. 137.1(3) to be related to a matter of public interest.
(a) there are grounds to believe that,
(i) the proceeding has substantial merit, and
(ii) the moving party has no valid defence in the proceeding; and
(b) the harm likely to be or have been suffered by the responding party as a result of the moving party’s expression is sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression.
(1) Section 137.1(4)(a) — Merits-Based Hurdle
 In brief, s. 137.1(4)(a) requires the plaintiff to “satisf[y] the judge” that there are “grounds to believe” that (i) its underlying proceeding has “substantial merit” and that (ii) the defendant has “no valid defence”.
 Unlike with s. 137.1(3), “satisfies” is statutorily circumscribed in s. 137.1(4)(a) by an express standard: “grounds to believe”. In other words, since the statutory language of s. 137.1(3) required that the motion judge simply be “satisfie[d]”, this necessitated a determination of what is sufficient to satisfy the motion judge. What is sufficient for the motion judge to be satisfied for the purposes of s. 137.1(4)(a)? Here, the legislature has expressly answered the question — the motion judge must be satisfied that there are grounds to believe. Therefore, at this juncture, before I explore what exactly is required by s. 137.1(4)(a)(i) and (ii), it must be determined what “grounds to believe” requires. This necessitates a consideration of the words themselves and their statutory context.
 The words “grounds to believe” plainly refer to the existence of a basis or source (i.e. “grounds”) for reaching a belief or conclusion that the legislated criteria have been met. In the context of a s. 137.1 motion, that basis or source must be anchored in the nature of the procedure and record contemplated by the legislative scheme. It must be borne in mind that a s. 137.1 motion can be brought at “any time” after a proceeding has commenced (see s. 137.2(1)).
 Accordingly, in determining whether there exist grounds to believe at the s. 137.1(4)(a) stage, courts must be acutely aware of the limited record, the timing of the motion in the litigation process, and the potentiality of future evidence arising. Introducing too high a standard of proof into what is a preliminary assessment under s. 137.1(4)(a) might suggest that the outcome has been adjudicated, rather than the likelihood of an outcome. To be sure, s. 137.1(4)(a) is not a determinative adjudication of the merits of the underlying claim or a conclusive determination of the existence of a defence.
 Section 137.1(4)(a) may therefore be interpreted by distinguishing a motion made under s. 137.1 from a motion to strike and a motion for summary judgment, both of which are tools that remain available to parties notwithstanding the existence of s. 137.1. The very fact that the legislature created s. 137.1 as a mechanism indicates that a s. 137.1 motion was meant to fulfil a different purpose than these other motions. While a summary judgment motion allows parties to file a more extensive record and a motion to strike is adjudicated solely on the pleadings, s. 137.1 contemplates that the parties will file evidence and permits limited cross-examination. This suggests that the parties are expected to put forward a record, commensurate with the stage of the proceeding at which the motion is brought, that lends itself to the inquiry mandated under s. 137.1(4)(a). Thus, although the limited record at this stage does not allow for the ultimate adjudication of the issues, it necessarily entails an inquiry that goes beyond the parties’ pleadings to consider the contents of the record (the extent of such consideration will be explored further in the next section).
 Accordingly, I conclude that “grounds to believe” requires that there be a basis in the record and the law — taking into account the stage of litigation at which a s. 137.1 motion is brought — for finding that the underlying proceeding has substantial merit and that there is no valid defence.
 The foregoing conclusion is consistent with the interpretation this Court has given to the expression “grounds to believe” in other contexts. Indeed, this standard has been found to require “something more than mere suspicion, but less than . . . proof on the balance of probabilities” (Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 40,  2 S.C.R. 100, at para. 114). This interpretation has been adopted in the regulatory context as well (see, e.g., Ontario (Alcohol and Gaming Commission) v. 751809 Ontario Inc., 2013 ONCA 157, 115 O.R. (3d) 24, at paras. 18-24; Ontario (Environment and Climate Change) v. Geil, 2018 ONCA 1030, 371 C.C.C. (3d) 149).
 Importantly, the assessment under s. 137.1(4)(a) must be made from the motion judge’s perspective. With respect, I am of the view that the Court of Appeal for Ontario incorrectly removed the motion judge’s assessment of the evidence from the equation in favour of a theoretical assessment by a “reasonable trier” (para. 82). The clear wording of s. 137.1(4) requires “the judge” hearing the motion to determine if there exist “grounds to believe”. Making the application of the standard depend on a “reasonable trier” improperly excludes the express discretion and authority conferred on the motion judge by the text of the provision. The test is thus a subjective one, as it depends on the motion judge’s determination.
 Taking all of the foregoing together, what s. 137.1(4)(a) asks, in effect, is whether the motion judge concludes from his or her assessment of the record that there is a basis in fact and in law — taking into account the context of the proceeding — to support a finding that the plaintiff’s claim has substantial merit and that the defendant has no valid defence to the claim.
 I turn now to consider what s. 137.1(4)(a)(i) and (ii) mean in substantive terms and how the plaintiff can satisfy its burden under s. 137.1(4)(a).
(a) Section 137.1(4)(a)(i) — Substantial Merit
 The question under s. 137.1(4)(a)(i) is whether the underlying proceeding has “substantial merit”. I proceed to elucidate what “substantial merit” means and what the responding party (i.e. plaintiff) needs to show in order to satisfy its burden.
 I begin with an analysis of the statutory text. The legislature’s express choice to use the specific word substantial as a qualifier must be given effect. Indeed, the use of the word substantial functions markedly differently than a qualifier such as having some merit, any merit, or just merit absent a qualifier. Black’s Law Dictionary acts as an interpretive aid in discerning the exact meaning of “substantial”, which it defines as follows:
1. Of, relating to, or involving substance, material . 2. Real and not imaginary; having actual, not fictitious, existence . 3. Important, essential, and material; of real worth and importance . This definition of “substantial” must be read in the context of s. 137.1(4)(a)(i), in which this word modifies “merit”. Accordingly, it must be asked what is meant by “merit”. The use of the word “merit” in the context of a s. 137.1 motion fundamentally calls for a determination of the prospect of success of the underlying proceeding. Indeed, what is at stake here is the potential dismissal of the proceeding without any opportunity to amend it: while the threshold burden under s. 137.1(3) is concerned with identifying an expression relating to a matter of public interest for protection, s. 137.1(4) engages the competing interest at play — ensuring that a plaintiff with a legitimate claim is not unduly deprived of the opportunity to pursue it; this is why the burden is on the plaintiff to ensure that its claim is not dismissed. Thus, given its ordinary meaning and when read in context, “merit” refers fundamentally to the strength of the underlying claim, as a stronger claim corresponds with a weaker justification to dismiss the underlying proceeding.
(Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019), at p. 1728)
 Legislative intent provides a further indication of how “substantial merit” ought to be interpreted. Indeed, “statutory interpretation cannot be founded on the wording of the legislation alone” (Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes, at para. 21). The APR did not offer much guidance on the meaning of “substantial merit”. It stated, however, that “the fact that a plaintiff’s claim may have only technical validity should not be sufficient to allow the action to proceed” (para. 37 (emphasis added)). This was echoed in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario: “I do not believe that a mere technical case — without actual harm — should be allowed to suppress the kind of democratic expression that is crucial for our democracy” (at p. 1972 (emphasis added) (Hon. Madeleine Meilleur)); “[i]t is also important that we recognize the strain that frivolous lawsuits place on our province’s busy court system” (at p. 1973 (emphasis added) (Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti)); “this legislation protects the people from frivolous lawsuits” (at p. 1975 (emphasis added) (Mr. Randy Pettapiece)); “if someone does have a legitimate claim that is not frivolous . . . you can still bring that type of lawsuit” (Official Report of Debates (Hansard), No. 112, 1st Sess., 41st Parl., October 27, 2015, at p. 6025 (emphasis added) (Mr. Jagmeet Singh)). While I acknowledge that the above excerpt from the APR is from the “Balancing interests” section of that report, the consistency of the language used in the legislative debates shows that the same concern informed the legislature’s understanding of how s. 137.1 would operate. It was clearly of the view that even if a proceeding was not merely frivolous or vexatious, or was technically valid, this should not be sufficient to allow the proceeding to continue. This is fundamentally a question that depends on the merits of the underlying proceeding, which makes the foregoing references well-suited as an interpretive aid under s. 137.1(4)(a)(i) given the statutory language ultimately used in the provision. Accordingly, it is clear from the legislative context that the words “substantial merit” are animated by a concern with making sure that, at a minimum, neither “frivolous” suits nor suits with only “technical” validity are sufficient to withstand a s. 137.1 motion. Substantial merit must mean something more.
 However, while frivolous suits are clearly insufficient, “something more” cannot require a showing that a claim is likely to succeed either, as some parties have posited. Neither the plain meaning nor the legal definition of “substantial” comports with a “likely to succeed” standard. The legislative and statutory context does not support such a standard either. If “substantial merit” requires a showing of being likely to succeed, this could unduly prevent cases from proceeding to the crux of the inquiry that is the weighing exercise under s. 137.1(4)(b). Given the importance of the weighing exercise in the legislative history, this cannot possibly be what the legislature contemplated. Indeed, nothing in the legislative history — whether in the APR or in the legislative debates — points to a “likely to succeed” standard as the threshold for the plaintiff to prevail at the merits-based hurdle of s. 137.1. While the plaintiff need not definitively demonstrate that its claim is more likely than not to succeed, the claim must nonetheless be sufficiently strong that terminating it at a preliminary stage would undermine the legislature’s objective of ensuring that a plaintiff with a legitimate claim is not unduly deprived of the opportunity to vindicate that claim.
 Therefore, I conclude from the foregoing exercise of statutory interpretation that for an underlying proceeding to have “substantial merit”, it must have a real prospect of success — in other words, a prospect of success that, while not amounting to a demonstrated likelihood of success, tends to weigh more in favour of the plaintiff. In context with “grounds to believe”, this means that the motion judge needs to be satisfied that there is a basis in the record and the law — taking into account the stage of the proceeding — for drawing such a conclusion. This requires that the claim be legally tenable and supported by evidence that is reasonably capable of belief.
 Importantly, this standard is more demanding than the one applicable on a motion to strike, which requires that the claim have some chance of success under the “plain and obvious” test (Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC),  2 S.C.R. 959). It is also more demanding than requiring that the claim have a reasonable prospect of success, which is a standard that this Court has also used to animate the “plain and obvious” test (R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42,  3 S.C.R. 45, at paras. 17-20). In light of the existence of a record, the substantial merit standard calls for an assessment of the evidentiary basis for the claim — this is why the claim must be supported by evidence that is reasonably capable of belief. This is consistent with the APR’s references to “substantive” merit, which inherently calls for an assessment of the basis or evidentiary foundation for a claim. I reiterate, however, that a claim with merely some chance of success will not be sufficient to prevail. Nor will a claim that has been merely nudged over the line of having some chance of success. A real prospect of success means that the plaintiff’s success is more than a possibility; it requires more than an arguable case. As I said in the preceding paragraph, a real prospect of success requires that the claim have a prospect of success that, while not amounting to a demonstrated likelihood of success, tends to weigh more in favour of the plaintiff. For a judge undertaking this inquiry, it is critical to recall that a s. 137.1 motion is not a determinative adjudication of the merits of the proceeding and, rather than having to be established on a balance of probabilities, substantial merit is instead tempered by a “grounds to believe” burden.
 The substantial merit standard is less stringent, however, than the “strong prima facie case” threshold, which requires a “strong likelihood of success” (R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., 2018 SCC 5,  1 S.C.R. 196), or the test for summary judgment, under which a legally sound claim supported by evidence reasonably capable of belief may nonetheless raise “no genuine issue requiring a trial” (Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7,  1 S.C.R. 87). While Hryniak was admittedly decided in the context of summary judgment motions, which call for an ultimate determination of the merits of a proceeding, that case is relevant at this juncture in order to assess the role of s. 137.1 motions: such motions do not exist in a vacuum and must necessarily be fulfilling a function different than other motions. Although too low a standard risks defeating the purpose of the distinct process for dismissal established by s. 137.1, too high a standard risks promoting a counter-productive culture whereby parties are forced to routinely compile detailed records similar to those expected on summary judgment motions or even trials.
 It is therefore important to recognize how s. 137.1 motions differ from summary judgment motions, as briefly touched on in the preceding section. Section 137.1 motions are made at an earlier stage in the litigation process, with much more limited evidence and corresponding procedural limitations (see s. 137.2). As a result, a motion judge deciding a s. 137.1 motion should engage in only limited weighing of the evidence and should defer ultimate assessments of credibility and other questions requiring a deep dive into the evidence to a later stage, where judicial powers of inquiry are broader and pleadings more fully developed. This is not to say that the motion judge should take the motion evidence at face value or that bald allegations are sufficient; again, the judge should engage in limited weighing and assessment of the evidence adduced. This might also include a preliminary assessment of credibility — indeed, the legislative scheme allows limited cross-examination of affiants, which suggests that the legislature contemplated the potential for conflicts in the evidence that would have to be resolved by the motion judge. However, s. 137.1(4)(a)(i) is not an adjudication of the merits of the underlying proceeding; the motion judge should be acutely conscious of the stage in the litigation process at which a s. 137.1 motion is brought and, in assessing the motion, should be wary of turning his or her assessment into a de facto summary judgment motion, which would be insurmountable at this stage of the proceedings.
 Finally, in determining the ambit of “substantial merit”, the statutory context of s. 137.1 must be borne in mind: even if a lawsuit clears the merits-based hurdle at s. 137.1(4)(a), it remains vulnerable to summary dismissal as a result of the public interest weighing exercise under s. 137.1(4)(b), which provides courts with a robust backstop to protect freedom of expression.
 In summary, in light of the foregoing analysis, to discharge its burden under s. 137.1(4)(a)(i), the plaintiff must satisfy the motion judge that there are grounds to believe that its underlying claim is legally tenable and supported by evidence that is reasonably capable of belief such that the claim can be said to have a real prospect of success.
(b) Section 137.1(4)(a)(ii) — No Valid Defence
 Section 137.1(4)(a)(ii) requires the responding party (i.e. plaintiff) to satisfy the motion judge that there are “grounds to believe” that the moving party (i.e. defendant) has “no valid defence” in the underlying proceeding.
 While the burden has admittedly shifted to the plaintiff under s. 137.1(4), it would be unreasonable to encumber the plaintiff at the s. 137.1(4)(a)(ii) stage with the task of anticipating every defence the defendant might raise and then rebutting those defences. Instead, s. 137.1(4)(a)(ii) operates as a de facto burden-shifting provision in itself, under which the moving party (i.e. defendant) must first put in play the defences it intends to present and the responding party (i.e. plaintiff) must then show that there are grounds to believe that those defences are not valid.
 In other words, once the moving party has put a defence in play, the onus is back on the responding party (i.e. plaintiff) to demonstrate that there are grounds to believe that there is “no valid defence”.
 The word no is absolute, and the corollary is that if there is any defence that is valid, then the plaintiff has not met its burden and the underlying claim should be dismissed. As with the substantial merit prong, the motion judge here must make a determination of validity on a limited record at an early stage in the litigation process — accordingly, this context should be taken into account in assessing whether a defence is valid. The motion judge must therefore be able to engage in a limited assessment of the evidence in determining the validity of the defence.
 I interpret the query on validity under s. 137.1(4)(a)(ii) as mirroring the query on substantial merit under s. 137.1(4)(a)(i). Fundamentally, both entail an assessment by the motion judge of the strength of the claim or of any defences as part of an overall assessment under s. 137.1(4)(a) of the prospect of success of the underlying claim. Having (i) and (ii) mirror each other to the extent possible makes sense given the fact that a prototypical s. 137.1 motion will be made in relation to a defamation or tort action and that affirmative defences to such an action normally involve well-articulated tests. The legislative drafting that nests both (i) and (ii) under s. 137.1(4)(a) confirms this interpretation. Indeed, in a defamation action, for example, a claim must be made out, and then the burden shifts to the defendant to identify any affirmative defences to the claim. The way that (i) and (ii) are nested under (a) reflects this: the substantial merit of the claim is analyzed and then the validity of any potential defences. For this reason, I interpret (ii) as an extension of (i), and I would analyze both in a similar fashion whereby the motion judge must first determine whether the plaintiff’s underlying claim is legally tenable and supported by evidence that is reasonably capable of belief such that the claim can be said to have a real prospect of success, and must then determine whether the plaintiff has shown that the defence, or defences, put in play are not legally tenable or supported by evidence that is reasonably capable of belief such that they can be said to have no real prospect of success. In other words, “substantial merit” and “no valid defence” should be seen as constituent parts of an overall assessment of the prospect of success of the underlying claim.
 In summary, s. 137.1(4)(a)(ii) operates, in effect, as a burden-shifting provision in itself: the moving party (i.e. defendant) must put potential defences in play, and the responding party (i.e. plaintiff) must show that none of those defences are valid in order to meet its burden. Mirroring the “substantial merit” prong, under which the plaintiff must show that there are grounds to believe that its claim has a real prospect of success, the “no valid defence” prong requires the plaintiff, who bears the statutory burden, to show that there are grounds to believe that the defences have no real prospect of success. This makes sense, since s. 137.1(4)(a) as a whole is fundamentally concerned with the strength of the underlying proceeding.