Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Whether the appellant’s communications were about a matter of public interest under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

• The true nature and motive behind the appellant’s communications to the respondent’s clients and the Ministry of Transportation.

• The sufficiency of the respondent’s evidence disproving the appellant’s allegations of harmful and unsafe practices and improper employment practices.

• The balancing of harm suffered by the respondent against the public interest in protecting the appellant’s expression under s. 137.1(4)(b).

• The appropriateness of the motion judge’s consideration of the appellant’s motive in the s. 137.1(3) analysis.

• Whether there was any reversible error in the motion judge’s exercise of discretion in awarding costs.

Background and facts of the case

1486151 Ontario Limited, operating as Diverse Transportation, was involved in a dispute with its former employee, Zhuo Chen. After leaving his employment, Chen claimed unpaid wages and other amounts from the company. In his demands for payment, Chen threatened to send damaging communications to Diverse Transportation’s clients and others if payment was not made. When payment was not made, Chen sent communications to the company’s most important clients and to the Ministry of Transportation, alleging that Diverse Transportation engaged in harmful and unsafe practices and was a bad employer. In these communications, Chen referenced his employment dispute along with the health and safety and other allegations.

Diverse Transportation commenced a defamation action against Chen. Chen responded by bringing an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, seeking to dismiss the defamation action on the basis that his communications were expressions on matters of public interest.

Court decisions and legal analysis

The motion judge found that the true nature of Chen’s communications was about his employment dispute, not a matter of public interest. The judge determined there was no basis for Chen’s health and safety and other allegations. The judge also found that there was no public interest in the appellant’s communications that would outweigh the respondent’s interest in continuing its defamation action. The motion judge concluded that the defamation action was aimed at vindicating Diverse Transportation’s business reputation and not at stifling public participation or blocking information the public had a right to know. As a result, the anti-SLAPP motion was dismissed, and costs of $50,000, all inclusive, were awarded to Diverse Transportation.

Chen appealed the dismissal of his anti-SLAPP motion and sought leave to appeal the costs order. The Court of Appeal was not persuaded that there was any basis to interfere with the motion judge’s decision. The appellate court found that it was open to the motion judge to find that the communications were about the employment dispute and that there was no error in the assessment of the evidence or in the balancing of interests. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and awarded Diverse Transportation costs of the appeal in the amount of $15,000.

Outcome and monetary award

The successful party is 1486151 Ontario Limited (Diverse Transportation). The total amount ordered in its favor was $65,000, consisting of $50,000 in costs awarded at the Superior Court and $15,000 in costs awarded on appeal. No damages beyond costs were specified in the decisions.