Ruling on Richmond Hill anti-SLAPP legislation case delayed
Toronto courts may hear case involving former councillor, local resident

YorkRegion.com
Oct. 9, 2016
Kim Zarzour

Residents and politicians, wondering just how far a citizen can go in expressing views on candidates during elections must wait a little longer for a ruling by the provincial courts.

Former councillor Nick Papa and Richmond Hill resident Frank Zeppieri appeared in court Friday on what is to be a precedent-setting case testing the province’s new so-called anti-SLAPP law.

The case has been delayed after Justice Guy DiTomaso decided it was too complicated to be heard in the six hours allotted at the Newmarket courthouse.

“You heard the judge,” Papa said when asked, upon leaving the courtroom, how he felt about the proceedings. “I’m perfect.”

Papa, a former Ward 5 councillor who was defeated in the 2014 municipal election, is suing Zeppieri, who was head of the Yongehurst-Weldrick West Residents’ Association, for $1 million, claiming defamation.

Zeppieri’s lawyer Iain MacKinnon is seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed, arguing that his client has the right to free speech and should be protected from fear of costly litigation under the Public Participation Act, which is the name of the anti-SLAPP legislation.

In the weeks prior to the election, Papa claims Zeppieri distributed defamatory words against him including a paid advertisement in The Richmond Hill Liberal showing his face with the words “On Oct. 27th show him he is UNWANTED”, and a photo of rapper Snoop Dogg on a Facebook page Zeppieri created.

In so doing, Papa said, Zeppieri expressly or by implication suggested Papa is “wanted” for criminal conduct.

The Facebook page also asserted that Papa and former Ward 2 Councillor Carmine Perrelli were best buddies which, Papa said, is false.

“Zeppieri’s attempt to associate Papa with Mr. Pirelli [sic], who was notoriously disliked as a Richmond Hill councillor, and Snoop Dogg is intended to disparage Papa’s reputation.”

In a court statement, MacKinnon argued Zeppieri was making fair comment in good faith and without malice on a matter of significant public interest, namely the Richmond Hill municipal election and opposition to a high-density development application.

The public interest in allowing Zeppieri to express himself outweighs any harm suffered by the politician, his motion states

MacKinnon said the legal battles are taking a big financial toll on the Zeppieri family, costing “tens of thousands of dollars” for the anti-SLAPP case, with much more expensive fees ahead if the defamation suit goes forward. 

“One of the important purposes of the act is to ensure people are not financially crippled because of comments on important matters that should be discussed.”

In an interview, Zeppieri said his motion is about freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

"Taxpayers must have the right to criticize politicians and campaign against politicians," he said. "If I feel that I can’t express myself for fear of litigation, I will not participate in any public forum or debate.”

Zeppieri and his wife struggled to keep emotions in check as they waited in the hallway outside the Newmarket courtroom Friday morning while lawyers and the judge discussed timing and finally announced that the case would not be heard that day.

Judge DiTomaso informed the parties that he was called in from Barrie due to a last-minute scheduling conflict and was not able to adequately prepare.

Because of the “nature and relative novelty of the issue”, he said, any judge hearing the case will need a considerable amount of time to give it the kind of reading it deserves.

Hearing the case would likely take at least two days, he said, and the next time a two-day time slot is available in Newmarket is June 2017.

With that date in the too-distant future, the parties agreed to seek to transfer the entire action to Toronto courts in the hopes of securing an earlier hearing date.