Actions That Proceeded to Trial and Actions That Were Dismissed

• Author: David A. Potts; Erin Stoik
• Pages: 279-286

279

 27

Actions That Proceeded to Trial and Actions That

Were Dismissed

In the decisions where the courts dismissed the anti-SLAPP motion and

ordered the actions to proceed totrial, it appears they—not surprisingly—

provide a variety of reasons for their decision.

DETERRENCE

The Supreme Court of Canada and the Ontario Court of Appeal have noted

the value of deterrence in allowing the libel actions to proceed.

Platnick v Bent, 2018 ONCA 687

Bent v Platnick, 2020 SCC 23 at paras 165–67:

[165] Quite importantly, Pointes Protection alsocalls for consideration of the

“chilling ef‌fect on future expression” and the “broader or collateral ef‌fects on

other expressions on matters of public interest”: para. 80 (emphasis omitted);

see also Abella J.’s reasons, at para. 262, with regard to the “considerable

chilling ef‌fect” of permitting Dr. Platnick’s defamation lawsuit to proceed.

Indeed, Ms. Bent has argued that if Dr. Platnick’s defamation proceeding

is allowed to continue, it would “not only stif‌le” her own speech, but “also

potentially deter others from speaking out against unfair and biased prac-

tices in the insurance industry and the diculties encountered by seriously

injured persons claiming the payment of benef‌its from their insurance com-

panies”: A.R., vol. III, at p. 29.

[166] I agree with my colleague that this concern, if valid, would weigh in

favour of the public interest in protecting the expression. To be sure, I do not

deny that s. 137.1(4)(b) is intended to specif‌ically protect expression that may