RSS FeedRenewing the Debate on Anti-SLAPP Legislation in Ontario
October 28th of this month will mark the one year anniversary of the publication of the Anti-SLAPP Panel’s Report to the Attorney General on anti-SLAPP legislation. Since then, the chatter on the issue of strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP) appears to have died down. With the intent of renewing the debate on this issue, the following article, although long overdue, will summarize and discuss the Advisory Panel’s report. It is hoped that the new provincial government will address the issue of SLAPPs during its four year term.
Introduction
In June 2010 the Attorney General of Ontario created the Advisory Panel to advise him on potential anti-SLAPP legislation. Arguably, this move was in response to what has been described as the “most down-and-dirty development fight in Ontario’s recent memory”.[1] After gaining approval from the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) to build a resort and marina on the shores of Big Bay Point, a developer made a costs application for $3.2 million against a community group and its lawyers that had opposed its plans.[2] Although the OMB declined to award the developer its costs, the latter did not come away from the proceedings empty-handed. The notion of suing the lawyers of defendants to a SLAPP lawsuit sent shockwaves throughout the Ontario legal community. While the Advisory Panel was still in the process of developing its recommendations the insurer for Ontario lawyers warned its members that representing public interest groups was risky because those groups may become the target of a SLAPP lawsuit that involves great unanticipated cost consequences.[3]
Having reached that critical point, it was not a great surprise that the final report released by Advisory Panel to the public in December 2010 recommended that anti-SLAPP legislation should be created. Instead of endorsing the creation of new statutory rights to public participation and to “SLAPPback,” the Advisory Panel opted for a procedure-based approach for filtering out SLAPP lawsuits and made recommendations on the different types of provisions that should be included in the legislation. Read more
Chuck Norris’ Tears Don’t Cure Cancer
So he claims, in a lawsuit against book publisher Penguin.
Chuck Norris is suing the publisher for releasing a book called The Truth About Chuck Norris: 400 facts about the World’s Greatest Human.
The book contains numerous allegedly “mythical” facts about Chuck Norris which were collected from the internet. The facts include:
- “Chuck Norris’s tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.”
- “When Chuck Norris does a push up, he isn’t lifting himself up, he’s pushing the Earth down.”
- “There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.”
- “Chuck Norris is not afraid of the dark. The dark is afraid of Chuck Norris.”
The lawsuit alleges that the book resulted in trademark infringement, unjust enrichment and misappropriation of personality.
You will note that Chuck Norris is not suing for defamation. I suspect that’s because truth is a defence.
What I can’t understand is why Chuck Norris is bothering to sue. We all know that Chuck Norris doesn’t step on toes. Chuck Norris steps on necks.
Ridiculous Warning Signs Coming Soon to a Supermarket Near You
The Canadian Press reports today that a B.C. woman has filed suit after being bitten by a spider while perusing the goods at a grocery store.
The woman, one Jessica Rocha De Mori, claims that two years ago, she was picking through produce at the T & T Supermarket (great store, by the way) in Surrey B.C. when she was viciously attacked by an eight-legged monster. She is seeking damages for injury that she suffered (a severe allergic reaction) as well expenses and economic losses.
The plaintiff’s statement of claim alleges that T & T Supermarket was negligent in not preventing spiders from turning up in the produce, or in the alternative, for not posting a warning sign extolling the dangers of the fruit section.
If this thing isn’t statute-barred for being outside the limitation period, I hope it fails for remoteness. If not, expect to see warning signs cropping up at grocery stores to let us know that the fruit aisle might contain:
spiders, dead flies, fruit, asbestos, little green monsters, sharp pointy things, and any other of the infinite possible things that pose a threat to our health which the supermarket can scarcely do anything about.
