Susan Lott, Corporate Retaliation Against Consumers: The Status of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) in Canada, September 2004, produced by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. The report is available at:
 Les poursuites stratégiques contre la mobilisation publique – les poursuites-bâillons (SLAPP) [Strategic lawsuits against public mobilization – gag lawsuits (SLAPPs)], p.76.
 This section summarizes Chapter 2 of the report Les poursuites stratégiques contre la mobilisation publique – les poursuites-bâillons (SLAPP), which sets out the justification for anti-SLAPP measures under the title De la justification des mesures anti-SLAPP, pp. 9-18.
 The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was adopted on December 16, 1966 and came into force on March 23, 1976. Canada acceded to the Covenant on May 19, 1976. It is available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm
 Available at:
 Op. cit., note 4.
 See notes 28 to 34 at page 14 of the report Les poursuites stratégiques contre la mobilisation publique – les poursuites-bâillons (SLAPP).
 The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is available at http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/EnglishAnglais.pdf.
Article 10 of the Convention reads as follows:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary
 Les poursuites stratégiques contre la mobilisation publique – les poursuites-bâillons (SLAPP), p.15.
 Op. cit., note 4.
 P.Perell, “A Survey of Abuse of Process”,  Annual Review of Civil Litigation (Thomson Carswell: Toronto, 2007) 243Perell, above, note 1, at 245. The author cites a number of cases, including Lang Michener Lash Johnston v Fabian, (1987), 59 O.R. (2d) 353 (H.Ct.), Carnegie v Rasmussen Starr Ruddy, (1994), 19 O.R. (3d) 272 (Gen. Div.), Warren v Pollitt, (1999) C.P.C. (4th) 154 (Ont. Gen. Div.), and Young v Borzoni,  B.C.J. No. 105 (B.C.C.A.).
 Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. C.43, s. 140.
 Ibid., s. 140(5).
 Ibid., s. 106.
 Canadian Express Ltd. v Blair, (1992) O.R. (2d) 44 (Gen. Div.) Of 39 cases cited in Watson and McGowan, Ontario Civil Practice 2008, (Thomson Carswell: Toronto) 2008, Vol. 1, pp. 160-163, about half granted stays, but none on the ground of abuse of process.
 The Rules of Civil Procedure in Ontario are a regulation under the Courts of Justice Act cited as R.R.O. 1990 c. 194. They are online at:
 See for example British Columbia’s Rules 18, 18A and 19. B.C.Reg. 221/90 as amended. See also Manitoba’s Rule 20, Court of Queen’s Bench Rules, Man. Reg. 553, as amended.
 Ibid., at 249.
 Rules of Civil Procedure, above, note 4, Rule 20.04(1).
 1061590 Ontario Limited v. Ontario Jockey Club, (1995), 21 O.R. (3d) 547 (C.A.)
 Ibid., Rule 20.04(4).
 K.J. Kelertas, “The Evolution of Summary Judgment in Ontario”, (1999), 21 Advocates’ Quarterly 265, 269-270. The article mentions the B.C. and Manitoba rules as well, and the US rules of federal civil procedure.
 Ibid. at 276 ff.
 Watson and McGowan, above, note 16, Vol. 1, p. 536.
 Ibid., at 537.
 2006 CanLII 21787 (ON S.C.), (2006), 82 O.R. (3d) 149.
 1991 CanLII 2731 (ON C.A.), (1991), 5 O.R. (3d) 778 at 782.
 Kelertas, above, note 23, at 303.
 Leggatt J. in Russell v. Russell, (1991), 37 R.F.L. (3d) 304, 306.
 Sussman v Eales, (1985), 1 C.P.C. (2d) 14 (Ont. H.Ct.).
 Watson and McGowan, above, note 5, Vol. 1. p. 599, summarizing Sussman v Ottawa Sun (The), (1997), 22 O.T.C. 75 (Ont. Gen. Div.).
 C. Tollefson, “Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation: Developing a Canadian Response”, (1994), 73 Can. Bar Rev. 200, 207. Professor Tollefson’s notes 26 and 27 also suggest that British Columbia’s rules on motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment are subject to the same limits as their Ontario counterparts discussed above.
 Watson and McGowan, above, note 16, Vol. 1 pp. 653-657.
 Perell, above, note 11, at 259.
 Ibid., at 265.
 Ibid., at 266.
 In addition to the remedies mentioned, one should note the impact of rules about costs. Costs can themselves have a SLAPP effect, as shown in a recent Ontario controversy about a claim for costs in a proceeding at the Ontario Municipal Board. Special rules about costs appear in Ontario in the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. c. S.22, s.17.1(2) and in the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992 c. 6, s. 31.
 Rapport d'évaluation de la Loi portant réforme du Code de procédure civile [Report on the implementation of the Act to reform the Code of Civil Procedure], Ministère de la Justice du Québec, 2006, p. 9. The report is available (in French) at:
 Wrebbit Inc. c. Benoît, A.J.Q./P.C. 1999-887 (C.S.), H. Reid and C. Carrier, Code de procédure civile du Québec – Jurisprudence et doctrine, Collection Alter Ego, 2005, Wilson & Lafleur, note 4.212, page 24.
 Rapport d'évaluation de la Loi portant réforme du Code de procédure civile, p. 63.
 Canada (Procureur général) c. Brault, J.E. 2006-577 (C.S.), para. 19.
 L. Chamberland, La règle de la proportionnalité: à la recherche de l'équilibre entre les parties? [The proportionality rule: the search for a balance between the parties?], in La réforme du Code de procédure civile, trois ans plus tard [Reform of the Code of Civil Procedure, three years later], Service de la formation continue du Barreau du Québec, Volume 242, Éditions Yvon Blais, 2006, pp. 26-27.
 R. Macdonald, P. Noreau, D. Jutras, Les poursuites stratégiques contre la mobilisation publique – les poursuites-bâillons (SLAPP), 2007, p. 55.
 Ibid, p. 64.
 D. Cloutier and C. Briand, Bonne foi et proportionnalité: les nouvelles balises fondamentales de l'exercice des droits [Good faith and proportionality: new basic guidelines for exercising rights], Service de la formation continue du Barreau du Québec, Congrès annuel (2008), see in particular page 23.
 H. Reid and C. Carrier, Code de procédure civile du Québec – collection Alter Ego, 23e Édition,
Montréal, Wilson & Lafleur ltée, 2007, para. 75.1/7.
 Ibid, para. 75.1/9.
 Châteauguay (Ville de) c. Faubert, (2007) 2007 QCCA 1044 (C.A.), Cheung c. Borsellino, (2005) J.E. 2005-1865 (C.A.).
 Aubry v. Éditions Vice‑Versa,  1 SCR. 591, para. 77.
 Viel c. Entreprises immobilières du Terroir Ltée,  R.J.Q. 1262 (C.A.).
 Ibid, p. 1276.
 Brique & pierre Bas-St-Laurent inc. c. Garantie (La), compagnie d'assurances de l'Amérique, (1997) J.E. 97-1492 (C.A.).
 Les poursuites stratégiques contre la mobilisation publique – les poursuites-bâillons (SLAPP), p. 57.
 The Act is available at:
 Bill 99 is available at
 Sections 425.16 ff., California Code of Civil Procedure, are available at:
 Section 76-A, Civil Rights Law, is available at:
 See Rules 3211 and 3212, New York Civil Practice Law and Rules. Rule 3211 is available at:
Rule 3212 is available at:
 Section 70-A, Civil Rights Law, is available at:
 See Harfenes v. Sea Gate Association, 167 Misc. 2d 647 (NY Sup Ct. 1995).
 See section 31.150, chapter 31, Oregon Revised Statutes - 2007, available at:
 See section 59H, chapter 231, Massachusetts General Laws, available at:
 See sections 8136 ff., chapter 81, Delaware Code, available at:
 Section 768.295, chapter 768 Negligence, Florida Statutes, s. 1, ch. 2000-174, also cited as the Citizen Participation in Government Act, is available at:
 For example, see the Defamation Act 2005, enacted by the State of Queensland, available at:
 The SCAG is a national ministers' council composed of the attorneys general of Australia, Australian states and territories and New Zealand. It is a forum for discussion on issues of common interest and works to harmonize the actions taken by its members, including legislative initiatives.
 For a detailed examination of Gunns, see the report of Dr. Greg Ogle of the Wilderness Society Inc., Gunning for Change – The Need for Public Participation Law Reform, available at:
 The Bill is available at:
- << Prev