Defining SLAPPs

When it comes to defining SLAPPs, there have been attempts by policymakers and researchers to do this. The beneath module explores the different definitions of SLAPPs and also provides some advice on how they are typically launched and how you can spot them. 

A plain text version is available here.

What are SLAPPs?

 

 

This introductory module explains what SLAPPs are, why they are typically brought and how to recognise them.

Defining SLAPPs

While SLAPP is defined informally in the same way as elsewhere (e.g. lawsuits brought for an improper purpose in response to public interest speech), Canadian anti-SLAPP laws protect public interest speech generally. There is no definition of “SLAPPs” in Canadian law. Rather, the issue is whether a lawsuit relates to expression on a matter of public interest. If so, there is a merits test and balancing test to determine whether the claim should be allowed to proceed. There is no requirement to prove an improper purpose, for example.

Manitoba, British Columbia and Ontario

  
Only Manitoba, British Columbia and Ontario have anti-SLAPP legislation (though Quebec has abuse of process provisions in its Code of Civil Procedure that protect against SLAPPs). In Manitoba, British Columbia and Ontario, the law provides that where a proceeding is based on expression on a matter of public interest, it is presumed dismissed unless:

(a) there are grounds to believe that,

(i) the proceeding has substantial merit, and

(ii) the moving party has no valid defence in the proceeding; and

(b) the harm likely to be or have been suffered by the responding party as a result of the moving party’s expression is sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression. 

See the Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43, s. 137.1 (for Ontario), the Protection of Public Participation Act, SBC 2019, c 3 (for BC) and The Public Interest Expression Defence Act, SM 2025, c 45 (for Manitoba).

Public interest is defined the same way as in the fair comment and responsible communication defences.

Defining SLAPPs

      
    
  
These laws also have important provisions. They require the motion to be heard expeditiously. They impose costs consequences, namely presumption that the moving party does not pay costs if unsuccessful on the motion, and that the responding party pays full indemnity costs if the motion is successful. Other related proceedings are brought to a halt until the motion is heard.

Quebec

In Quebec, which operates under a civil law system, defamation is regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows for a court to determine that a judicial application or pleading is abusive, including where the use of procedure operates to restrict another person’s freedom of expression in public debate (Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR c C-25.01, art 51, 53). Once a party establishes that the judicial application or proceeding may constitute an abuse of procedure, the onus shifts to the party making the application or pleading (e.g. the party bringing the SLAPP) to show that it is not excessive or unreasonable and is justified in law (Code of Civil Procedure, art 52).