In Hamer v. Jane Doe (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from a successful SLAPP CJA s.137.1 motion.
Here the court comments on the effect of an anonymous declarant in the defamation context:
[87] A trier of fact could accept that the respondents’ reason to publish the postings was on a matter of public interest, namely, animal welfare. However, the true sting of the defamation puts the overall fairness of the publication into question. Moreover, there are grounds to believe that this defence could fail because on this record, other than hearsay evidence, the respondents do not appear to have taken any steps to ensure the accuracy of the factual assertions in the publication.
[88] This was especially important in the context of an anonymous poster like Ms. Melo whom the respondents permitted to join the Group and make postings without first verifying Ms. Melo’s identity and vetting her postings. The anonymous nature of postings on the Internet can create a greater risk that defamatory comments are believed, and the potential audience of such posts is far-reaching: Barrick Gold Corp. v. Lopehandia (2004), 2004 CanLII 12938 (ON CA), 71 O.R. (3d) 416 (C.A.), at para. 31.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
