In 40 Days for Life v. Dietrich (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal notes that not all SLAPP cases are responding to defamation actions:
[46] Most often, a s. 137.1 motion is brought with respect to a free-standing defamation claim. However, in some cases, such as this one, several causes of action are combined. This case is unusual in that the expressions that form the basis of the defamation claim are not co-extensive with the expressions that ground the other claims.
[47] Therefore, in deciding whether the motion judge erred in dismissing the motion, it is not necessary to address her analysis of each cause of action in the merits-based hurdle before turning to her analysis of the public interest weighing. It is only necessary to address separate causes of action to the extent that they arise from different expressions. Thus, in this appeal, in order to bring all of the impugned statements into the analysis, it is necessary to consider the motion judge’s analysis of the defamation claim and one or other of the conspiracy claim and internet harassment claims, but not both.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
