The Silo

A Second Look At Ontario Bill83 AKA SLAPP

Dr Evil Canadian free speech, journalistic powers or lack there of are back in the news. Here is a related story  about Ontario’s Bill 83 from last year that deserves a second read.

Bill83. The threat of abusive lawsuits claiming damages like slander and defamation is deterring  a significant number of Ontarians from speaking out against big business on issues of public interest.

Our tweet from Feb22 2015 shows an interest in related freedom of expression concerns.
Our tweet from Feb22 2015 shows an interest in related freedom of expression concerns.

Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) are lawsuits brought by companies with the specific aim of distracting or silencing defendants. The defendants, usually ordinary citizens or public interest groups, feel threatened by the prospect of paying legal fees over several years and the possibility of paying large damage awards in the end. Even if the lawsuits have no merit, they often result in a “chill” on free speech in general because SLAPPs are also meant to intimidate the general public who are watching it all play out in the media.

John Gerretsen Attorney General Kingston and the Islands.
John Gerretsen Attorney General Kingston and the Islands.

Attorney General John Gerretsen has introduced Bill 83 ( In its 2nd reading at the time of this original posting, now referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy CP) to address this dubious use of Ontario’s publicly funded court system. The proposed legislation would force the courts to identify within 60 days whether a suit was in the public interest or an intimidation tactic to limit debate on an important local issue.

In communities facing fast paced economic development, this legislation is sure to play an important role in protecting the ordinary courage of citizens to tell their story, to share local knowledge and research findings and to insist on an authentic community vision for a healthy and sustainable future. For the Silo, Leslie Cochran. Originally published in print March 21, 2014.

Posted

in

by

The Silo

Tags:

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

3 responses to “A Second Look At Ontario Bill83 AKA SLAPP”

  1. Mark Bourrie Avatar
    Mark Bourrie

    Here’s a piece I did a while back, after the law took affect: https://tvo.org/…/how-ezra-levants-latest-libel-suit…

  2. Toby Barrett Avatar
    Toby Barrett

    Speaking out without the fear of being SLAPPed

    Given the importance of citizen participation in our society, the last thing needed is the possibility that those who speak out should be subject to frivolous lawsuits.

    New legislation currently before the Ontario Parliament aims to change that. Bill 52, the Protection of Public Participation Act, is an Anti-SLAPP lawsuit bill designed to encourage individual expression on matters of public interest and discourage the use of litigation as a means to suffocate expression on public matters. SLAPP is short for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

    If Bill 52 is enacted, it will allow defendants the opportunity to prove before a judge that legal proceedings brought against them arise from a communication they made in good faith regarding the public interest. When the judge is satisfied that this is the case, the legal proceedings would be dismissed as it would be determined to be a SLAPP lawsuit. If the judge is not satisfied, legal proceedings could continue.

    My first awareness of SLAPP tactics goes back to 2008 when I sat on a committee holding public hearings on the Lake Simcoe Protection Act. At that time, there were was a bitter feud between cottagers and developers on Lake Simcoe, involving $255 million in lawsuits. One person who testified before the committee was subject to a $1-million lawsuit and explained how it negatively impacted his attempt to fight a large development.

    I realized these lawsuits were intended to shut people up or perhaps to punish them for holding an opposing view.

    Part of what defines a SLAPP is that it is a meritless case and is intended more to intimidate or punish the defendant, rather than to seek justice for any wrong suffered by the plaintiff. Typically, SLAPPs are withdrawn shortly before going to trial, but by that time they’ve already served their purpose. The purpose is for the defendant to go through an extended period of duress, and often at a great cost financially in lawyer’s fees to prepare for an impending court case.

    If you think the concept of somebody sued for speaking out doesn’t seem realistic, let me assure it is. I have first-hand knowledge. I and other area elected officials are named in a $260-billion lawsuit in connection to the Six Nations/Caledonia scandal – that’s $260 billion with a ‘b’.

    Last spring, the premier filed a lawsuit against former Opposition leader Tim Hudak and MPP Lisa MacLeod for accusations that the premier “oversaw and possibly ordered the criminal destruction of documents” related to the $1.1 billion gas plant scandal. Changes have since been made to make Bill 52 not retroactive and thus not applicable in the Hudak MacLeod lawsuit.

    At time of writing, the bill remains before the Legislature in second reading debate. It is expected to pass and be referred to committee. I encourage anyone concerned with these kinds of frivolous lawsuits to make a submission. For more information on this process, contact me at toby.barrett@pc.ola.org

    I support Bill 52 but feel appropriate safeguards are needed so we don’t go too far the other way – taking away any ability to sue. We do have to achieve some balance to ensure legitimate lawsuits can go forward, because in our society we also do have the right to have our day in court.

  3. Amy Watson Avatar
    Amy Watson

    Green Party of Ontario leader Mike Schreiner is calling on the Liberal government to restore retroactive protections in legislation for people threatened by SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suits.

    “The Liberals are more interested in protecting themselves and their friends than citizens and democracy,” says Schreiner. “How else do they explain removing retroactive protections for people being silenced by SLAPP suits?”

    Schreiner is calling on the Premier to respond to media reports that the Liberals removed retroactive protection from Bill 52 –Protection of Public Participation Act–so it would not apply to the Premier’s $2 million lawsuit against PC MPPs Tim Hudak and Lisa Mcleod. Media reports also suggest the Liberals are responding to pressure from corporations who donate to the Liberal party.

    “The Premier must answer media accusations that the Liberals weakened the anti-SLAPP bill to benefit the Premier and corporations who donate money to the Liberal party,” says Schreiner. “We need a government that will put the people of Ontario before corporate donors.”

    The GPO supports anti-SLAPP legislation to protect people who speak out in the public interest to protect their communities and organizations that blow the whistle on controversial topics. The GPO supports the original legislation introduced in 2013 that provided retroactive protection for all expressions in the public interest against SLAPPs.

    “I’m tired of the political games that continue to prevent passage of strong legislation to protect people and organizations that speak out in the public interest to protect our communities and democracy,” says Schreiner. “Liberal efforts to weaken this bill are a slap in the face of democracy.”

    Amy Watson

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.