SLAPP silly

photo credit:

There’s been some confusion lately about what Bill 83, the Protection of Public Participation Act, would and wouldn’t do. We’d like to clear up some of this confusion.

Bill 83 is aimed at preventing SLAPP suits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). SLAPP suits are used to intimidate citizens and community groups from voicing their concern about what big companies with deep pockets want to do.

Let’s be clear: Bill 83 is essential for protecting free speech in Ontario.

Despite what a recent letter might assume, Bill 83 was not dreamed up in response to a single case like the ongoing lawsuit involving logging company Resolute Forest Products and Greenpeace. In fact, its origin has nothing to do with that case.

It’s time for a little history:  The need for anti-SLAPP legislation was highlighted by an expert panel set up by Ontario’s Attorney General in 2010. The panel, which was chaired by Dean Mayo Moran of the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law and included Peter Downard, a partner of the Fasken Martineau law firm, stated that “threats of lawsuits [in Ontario] for speaking out on matters of public interest, combined with a number of actual lawsuits, deter significant numbers of people from participating in discussions on such matters.”

The recognition that an anti-SLAPP law was needed came from cases like Markham, where two municipal councillors were each sued for $120,000 in 2010 for speaking out to protect farmland in the region. When elected officials face lawsuits for voicing the concerns of their constituents, it’s clear there is a problem.

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath first introduced anti-SLAPP legislation in 2008. MPP Yasir Naqvi followed with an anti-SLAPP law in 2012, which got wiped off the table when the legislature was prorogued that December. The law currently up for debate was introduced by in spring 2013 by the Attorney General, Honorable John Gerretsen. Here’s hoping the third time is the charm because in Ontario we need this law.

So what does the proposed law do?

The proposed law has four important objectives:

1. It aims to encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest.
2. It promotes public participation in debates on matters of public interest.
3. It discourages lawsuits that unduly limit expression on issues of public interest.
4. It reduces the risk that participation in debates on matters of public interest will be hampered by the fear of legal action.

This law would allow a judge to dismiss a lawsuit if, and only if, a strict legal test has been met including that the expression is a matter of public interest. The law would not deny access to the courtroom; quite the opposite, it would give a judge authority to dismiss only those cases that are clearly SLAPPS, which are intended to shut down public debate.

Contrary to some of what’s been said recently, the law wouldn’t protect people or organizations from legitimate libel or defamation lawsuits. If you cross the line, you’d still be held accountable in the court of law.

Bill 83 restores a crucial element of a functioning democracy – the public’s right to free and open debate about important issues we collectively face as a society. This bill is a fair and balanced law that protects individuals and community groups, who want to participate in public debate from the chilling impact of SLAPPs.

And, we have to wonder why any company would oppose such a law. Isn’t engaging the public in discussion a good thing? There are many companies in the province that have figured out how to meaningfully engage communities in dialogue about their concerns, and don’t need to resort to fear and intimidation to get their way. Now, that’s better model of corporate behaviour.

Unfortunately, there are still some companies that would rather intimidate than engage in dialogue, that would prefer to silence rather than listen. And that’s why we need this law.

There is no question that Bill 83 is a move in the right direction for Ontario’s democracy: please show your support for its passage.