Do I file a defence or bring a motion to dismiss a SLAPP case?<\/p>\n
Ontario enacted an anti-SLAPP statute to stop “strategic lawsuits against public participation” defamation cases in 2015.<\/p>\n
In\u00a0United Soils Management Ltd. v. Katie Mohammed, 2017 ONSC 904,\u00a0COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-560261, the Ontario Superior Court decided that since the defendant filed her motion to dismiss before she filed her Statement of Defence, she could not later file her defence until after her motion was heard. In the end, Justice Penny ruled:<\/p>\n
[<\/a>23]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, I grant the appeal.\u00a0The statement of defence and counterclaim ought not to have been delivered in the action after the defendant brought her motion to dismiss under s. 137.1. That step was contrary to s. 137.1(5) and must be set aside. However, the defendant shall be entitled to delivery a supplementary affidavit limited to attaching her proposed defence and counterclaim as an exhibit. This shall be done within 7 days. The plaintiff is at liberty to file a supplementary affidavit limited to filing its proposed reply and defence to counterclaim. This shall be done within a further 7 days. Each party may conduct one additional hour of cross-examination limited to new issues, not previously examined on, arising solely out of the proposed pleadings. There shall be no further motions before the return of the anti-SLAPP motion, subject only to the direction of the judge hearing the anti-SLAPP motion.<\/p>\n Costs<\/p>\n [24] The plaintiff was successful on the motion. However, it was an entirely technical and Phyrric victory given my disposition. The plaintiff turned a molehill into a mountain. The costs of this motion are fixed in the amount of $7,500 inclusive of all fees, disbursements and applicable taxes, payable to the defendant in the cause.<\/p>\n United Soils Management Ltd. v Katie Mohammed, 2017 ONSC 904<\/a><\/p>\n Katie Mohammed had been hit with the libel suit after she posted comments online regarding a gravel pit in her community.<\/p>\n Subsection 9 of the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, s. 137.1, allows the court to award damages if the judge finds the plaintiff brought the proceeding in bad faith or for improper purpose.<\/p>\n In the end, Katie Mohammed won her motion to dismiss and the Justice Lederer awarded her an additional $7500 in damages.<\/p>\n See the details in these articles:<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.cbc.ca\/radio\/asithappens\/as-it-happens-friday-edition-1.4175492\/how-an-ontario-mom-fended-off-a-120k-libel-lawsuit-over-her-facebook-posts-1.4175496<\/a><\/p>\n http:\/\/canadianlawyermag.com\/legalfeeds\/3941\/stouffville-woman-awarded-damages-in-slapp-case.html<\/a><\/p>\n Sabrina Callaway represented Katie Mohammed.<\/p>\n Big win for @sotosllp<\/a> as court dismisses defamation action and awards damages to our client under anti-#SLAPP<\/a> law. https:\/\/t.co\/rY00vCm1RC<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 David Sterns (@david_sterns) July 26, 2017<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\nHow an Ontario mom fended off a $120K libel lawsuit over her Facebook posts<\/h3>\n
Stouffville woman awarded damages in SLAPP case<\/h3>\n
\n