|
Torts - SLAPP - 'Motive'. Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited v. Eaton Equipment Ltd.
In Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited v. Eaton Equipment Ltd. (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered the role of 'motive' in the course of dismissing an appeal from a defendant's unsuccessful SLAPP CJA s.137.1 motion:[5] On the motion, it was the Milburn appellants’ position that Canadian Tire’s action was initiated to further an indirect, collateral, or improper purpose so that they were obstructed from going public or notifying relevant authorities of their knowledge of Canadian Tire’s sale of allegedly defective parts and privacy law violations. The Robertson appellants made similar submissions and argued that Canadian Tire’s action is a SLAPP proceeding against them by extension because they had been included in the lawsuit as leverage to be used against the Milburn appellants.(2)
Decision of the Motion Judge
[6] The motion was restricted to a determination of whether the moving parties had satisfied the threshold requirement of showing on a balance of probabilities that the action arises from an expression made by the moving parties that related to a matter of public interest. 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.
....
[11] Regarding the issue of motive, the plaintiff’s motivation in commencing an action is not a relevant factor at the first stage of the SLAPP analysis, nor are the criteria that are used in determining whether an action should be dismissed. Instead, the inquiry is restricted under the CJA to the determination of whether the moving party has shown on a balance of probabilities that the action arises from an expression made by it that related to a matter of public interest.
[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.
|
