Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Anti-SLAPP provisions were successfully invoked to dismiss a defamation and trespass claim aimed at suppressing public criticism.

• The court ruled that the lawsuit's primary purpose was to silence the defendant’s public expression on matters of public interest.

• Full indemnity costs were awarded based on the plaintiff’s conduct and litigation strategy that significantly expanded the scope of the motion.

• The defendant’s efforts to settle and clear warnings about costs reinforced the fairness of the full indemnity award.

• The plaintiff’s voluminous and unnecessary materials, including inadmissible expert evidence, increased the cost and complexity of the motion.

• The court emphasized the deterrent purpose of cost awards in SLAPP cases, aligning with legislative intent under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Background and legal context

The case arose from a civil action brought by a developer, Sheridan Retail Inc., against Pierre Roy, an engineering student and local resident. Roy had publicly criticized the redevelopment of the Sheridan Mall, raising environmental, social, and safety concerns. In response, the developer sued him for $300,000 in damages for defamation and trespass.

Roy brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of Ontario’s Courts of Justice Act, which provides a mechanism to dismiss strategic lawsuits intended to silence public participation. In a previous decision issued on May 13, 2025, the court granted Roy’s motion, dismissed the claim entirely, and awarded him $25,000 in damages, finding the action to be a classic SLAPP suit.

Costs litigation and positions of the parties

Following the dismissal, the court reserved the issue of costs. Roy requested $156,394.54 in full indemnity costs, as contemplated under s. 137.1(7) of the Courts of Justice Act. The developer acknowledged entitlement to full indemnity costs but argued that the amount sought was excessive, proposing a cap at $100,000 based on reasonableness and efficiency principles outlined in appellate case law.

Judicial analysis of costs

The court upheld Roy’s request in full. In doing so, Justice Mandhane addressed the concern about escalating costs in anti-SLAPP motions, citing appellate guidance that costs should generally not exceed $50,000. However, the court emphasized that this was not a strict limit and exceptions are permitted where circumstances justify higher awards.

Roy’s conduct weighed heavily in favor of granting the full amount. He made good-faith attempts to settle, including sending his bill of costs before the hearing. His motion was streamlined, relying on a single affidavit and focused legal arguments. In contrast, the developer filed over 2,000 pages of material, three affidavits, and an inadmissible expert report. The plaintiff further complicated the motion by attempting to sever the trespass claim late in the proceedings, an issue that became central to the hearing and increased the motion's complexity and cost.

The court also noted the extensive procedural steps required, including multiple scheduling appearances, cross-examinations, undertakings, and preparation of detailed legal materials. While the court found the costs bill could have been more itemized, the time and effort involved were accepted as justified.

Rationale and outcome

Justice Mandhane concluded that the amount sought was fair, reasonable, and consistent with other full indemnity cost awards in similar cases. The judgment reaffirmed the function of anti-SLAPP cost provisions as a deterrent against litigation aimed at suppressing public expression. The developer was ordered to pay the full amount of $156,394.57 in indemnity costs.