United Soils Management Ltd v Mohammed, 2017 ONSC 1396

In 2016, an Ontario mother and teacher, Katie Mohammed, concerned about contamination of local water tables, posted to two Facebook groups criticizing the plan of United Soils Management to deposit "acceptable fill" from excavation sites into a gravel pit. The posts contained words such as "poison" and referenced the risk to the "children."

Counsel for United Soils Management demanded that Mohammed retract and apologize for the defamatory statements. Two days later, Mohammed posted in both groups doing so, but by the end of that week she was served with a statement of claim for libel seeking damages in the amount of $120,000.

In her statement of defence, Ms Mohammed relied on the anti "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation" to protect her freedom of speech.

The judge found that the company's lawsuit did not have any merit, let alone substantial merit, and would not suffer sufficient harm by the statements to warrant limiting her expression of concern. The judge dismissed the case and awarded $7,500 to Ms Mohammed in damages.

1. Do you agree that the plaintiff's claim had no merit? Why or why not?

2. How did the anti-SLAPP legislation assist the defendant in this action?

3. Do you think that the decision against the plaintiff would be a deterrent to this company and/or other companies in that industry? Why or why not?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

1 Based on the information provided it seems that the plaintiffs claim lacked merit because the judg... View the full answer