Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 14 JUNE 2023

"Chilling Effect" On A Plaintiff Or Others Not Grounds For Harm On An Anti-SLAPP Motion

The case involved two well-known local public figures who had become engaged in a war of words over political views expressed in connection with gender identity and sexual orientation.

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Since 2020, two Supreme Court of Canada cases have guided the analysis of anti-SLAPP motions in Ontario and British Columbia: 1704604 Ontario Ltd. v. Pointes Protection Association, 2020 SCC 22 and Bent v. Platnick, 2020 SCC 23. Although the guidance provided in these cases is clear, the barrage of anti-SLAPP motions that continue to be brought raise new issues that have again required intervention by the highest court in Canada.

In Hansman v. Neufeld, 2023 SCC 14, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed whether a plaintiff could rely on the argument that the dismissal of his action would cause him harm as a result of restricting his freedom of expression and losing the opportunity to sue for damages.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from