Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff’s attempt to discontinue the defamation lawsuit was ruled ineffective due to a statutory stay under section 137.1(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

• Defendant’s communications about alleged payroll issues were found to be expressions on matters of public interest under s. 137.1(3).

• The court held there were grounds to believe the plaintiff’s defamation claim lacked substantial merit.

• Defendant demonstrated a valid defence of justification (truth), defeating the plaintiff’s attempt to proceed.

• Plaintiff’s conduct was found to be in bad faith, intended to silence or intimidate the defendant, triggering s. 137.1(9).

• Defendant was awarded $5,000 in damages and full indemnity costs for both the motion and the proceeding.

Background and Key Facts

Zhuo Chen worked for Contrans Tank Group GP Inc. as a truck driver between September 2020 and June 2021. A dispute arose over whether Chen resigned or was terminated. After leaving, Chen alleged that Contrans had systematically reduced his reported hours and layovers on his timesheets, resulting in significant underpayment. He further believed these payroll practices disproportionately affected immigrant and minority drivers.

Chen repeatedly raised the issue with management and was partially reimbursed after persistent follow-ups. He also claimed he experienced racial and ethnic discrimination in the workplace. After leaving the company, he shared his concerns via email with several former co-workers in July 2022. These emails alleged that Contrans deliberately underpaid drivers, particularly those from immigrant backgrounds, and advised others to check their pay records. The emails also referenced Chen’s pending legal action.

Contrans responded by filing a defamation suit in October 2022, seeking damages and injunctions to prevent Chen from contacting current or former employees or discussing company information.

The Anti-SLAPP Motion and Discontinuance Attempt

In June 2023, Chen brought a motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (Ontario’s anti-SLAPP legislation), seeking to dismiss the defamation suit. Before the hearing date, Contrans served a notice of discontinuance without costs, hoping to render the anti-SLAPP motion moot.

However, Justice Raikes held that the notice of discontinuance was ineffective. Under s. 137.1(5), no party may take any further steps in a proceeding once an anti-SLAPP motion is filed. Serving a notice of discontinuance qualified as such a step. This interpretation was consistent with precedent (e.g., Canadian Thermo Windows Inc. v. Seangio, 2021 ONSC 6555), reinforcing that plaintiffs cannot avoid anti-SLAPP scrutiny through procedural tactics.

Merits of the Anti-SLAPP Motion

The court proceeded to determine the anti-SLAPP motion on its merits. Under the two-part test in s. 137.1:

1. Public Interest Expression
   Justice Raikes found that Chen’s July 2022 emails were expressions concerning a matter of public interest: wage fairness and alleged systemic discrimination in a trucking company. The emails were directed at a group of former coworkers and described issues likely to concern other drivers and industry participants.

2. Plaintiff’s Burden – Substantial Merit and No Valid Defence
   The burden then shifted to Contrans to demonstrate that:

   • The defamation action had substantial merit, and

   • Chen had no valid defence, and

   • The harm caused by Chen’s expression was sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting it.

   The court accepted that the emails were defamatory on their face, alleging dishonesty, discrimination, and safety concerns. However, Justice Raikes found that Contrans did not meet its burden to show that Chen lacked a valid defence. The defendant’s justification defence (i.e., the truth of the statements) was supported by evidence of recurring payroll discrepancies and a pattern of issues during his employment. Contrans’s affidavit evidence failed to meaningfully refute these claims or demonstrate that no other employees were similarly affected.

   As a result, the plaintiff failed to show that the defendant had no valid defence, and the action was dismissed under s. 137.1.

Bad Faith and Damages

Justice Raikes also addressed whether Contrans brought the action in bad faith or for an improper purpose, which could entitle Chen to damages under s. 137.1(9). The court concluded that Contrans’s conduct was indeed intended to silence and intimidate the defendant:

• It filed the action after Chen began contacting others about the alleged payroll issues.

• It sought broad injunctive relief aimed at preventing him from discussing the company.

• The plaintiff delayed moving forward with the suit and only attempted to discontinue after Chen had incurred costs and completed the necessary steps to argue his anti-SLAPP motion.

Given these factors, the court awarded:

• $5,000 in damages for the stress and impact on Mr. Chen.

• Full indemnity costs for both the motion and the proceeding, in accordance with s. 137.1(7).

Conclusion

This decision is a clear affirmation of Ontario’s anti-SLAPP legislation. It underscores the courts’ commitment to preventing the misuse of defamation law as a tool to suppress criticism, particularly where the expression involves workplace conditions and public accountability. The ruling also emphasizes that once an anti-SLAPP motion is in play, plaintiffs cannot sidestep the process by serving a notice of discontinuance.