Pair of defamation lawsuits will test Ontario’s new ‘anti-SLAPP’ law
One case will also look at whether it’s defamatory to compare someone to Snoop Dog.

TheStar.com
Oct. 6, 2016
Noor Javed

The province’s new so-called anti-SLAPP legislation will be put to the test in GTA courts in coming weeks as lawyers in two separate cases argue that the defamation lawsuits their clients are facing should be dismissed to protect public participation in matters of public interest.

One case may also determine if comparing someone to rapper Snoop Dogg can be considered defamatory.

That’s just one of the unusual allegations being made by a former Richmond Hill councillor, Nick Papa, against local resident Frank Zeppieri, in a $1-million defamation suit.

Lawyers for the defendant will be in a Newmarket court Friday to argue the case should be dismissed under the relatively untested legislation.

Zeppieri’s statement of defence argues his actions were a matter of public interest.

“My client, Mr. Zeppieri, was just speaking his mind and exercising his free speech rights on a couple of very important issues,” lawyer Iain MacKinnon, with Linden & Associates, said in an interview, adding his client was shocked when he was served with the lawsuit.

Papa, who lost his seat in the 2014 municipal election, alleges in the lawsuit that Zeppieri took out an ad in the local paper telling voters to show that the politician was “unwanted,” falsely accused him of supporting controversial residential developments in the town and made an associated Facebook page with a picture of the rapper Snoop Dogg, with the intent of disparaging him.

“The Facebook page expressly or by implication suggests that Papa is ‘wanted’ for criminal conduct and associates Papa with the rap singer ‘Snoop Dogg’ who is known as a person who uses drugs and has been associated with criminal activity,” says Papa, in his statement of claim, which was filed in January 2015.

Papa’s lawyer, Paul Starkman of Starkman Barristers, did not respond to a request for comment.

The province passed the Public Participation Act, known at the anti-SLAPP legislation, last October with the goal of stopping “strategic lawsuits against public participation” — in other words, lawsuits used by individuals or companies to silence critics. The province has said it wants to ensure residents — as well as bloggers and reporters — are able to speak out on issues without fear of costly litigation.

In a separate case expected to be in a Milton court next week, lawyers for freelance journalist Stacey Newman will be asking to dismiss a $17.5-million defamation lawsuit filed by a prominent Milton businessman Azim Rizvee and his wife Rabiya Azim. Rizvee, running for the federal Liberals, lost the election in 2015 to incumbent Lisa Raitt.

His statement of claim says that Newman alleged publicly that she was intimidated and harassed by Azim, Rizvee and his supporters. The lawsuit says Newman posted these allegations on a number of websites, including Facebook and rabble.ca, and in an open letter to Justin Trudeau.

“As a result of the publication of the defamatory words, the plaintiffs have been subjected to ridicule, hatred and contempt, and have suffered damages to their reputations personally and in the way of their offices, professions, callings, trades and businesses,” reads the statement of claim.

Newman’s lawyer Nader Hasan, with Stockwoods Barristers, argues in court filings that the case should be dismissed in light of Ontario’s anti-SLAPP law.

“The purpose of the act was to protect people who are engaging in their free speech rights from being subject to retaliatory defamation lawsuits brought by the rich and powerful,” he said in an interview, adding that “in a democracy, you should be able to criticize politicians and hold them to account without fear of retaliation.”

Rizvee’s lawyer, Laughlin J. Campbell, the managing partner of Campbell Bader LLP, said in an interview that Newman’s comments “did not add anything substantial to the political dialogue.”

Campbell said he expects the judge’s ruling will “help set the boundaries” of how the legislation, which has only been tested in two cases thus far, will be applied. “It's an important case answering important questions,” he said.

Hasan says in any anti-SLAPP lawsuit, a judge will have to ensure the lawsuit meet three important tests before allowing it to proceed to trial, including:

• Is the lawsuit about a matter of public interest?
• Does the case of the plaintiff have substantial merit?
• Is the harm suffered, or likely to be suffered, by the plaintiff serious enough to justify stopping public expression?

“This is not just about Ms. Newman’s free speech rights, but to a certain extents, it’s about all of our free speech rights,” he said.