Background: This case involves Deep Water Recovery Ltd. (DWR), which conducts shipbreaking operations in British Columbia, leading to public criticism by local resident Mary Reynolds over environmental concerns. Reynolds took legal action against DWR for alleged damages and theft related to her drone, which she used to document the operation. In response, DWR filed a counterclaim citing trespass, nuisance, and privacy invasion due to Reynolds' activities.

Legal Issues: The core legal discussion centers on DWR's attempt to dismiss Reynolds' claim using the Protection of Public Participation Act (PPPA), which aims to protect public expression against strategic lawsuits. The court initially ruled against DWR's application to declare the PPPA inapplicable to its counterclaim.

Court's Analysis: The Court of Appeal examined whether DWR's counterclaim could be considered a strategic lawsuit intended to silence Reynolds, focusing on the applicability of PPPA protections for her public expressions. The judge highlighted the importance of freedom of expression and the PPPA's role in protecting such freedoms against potentially abusive litigation.

Decision: The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, rejecting DWR's application for a stay of proceedings pending appeal. The court found that DWR's appeal lacked merit, would not result in irreparable harm if denied, and that the balance of convenience favored Reynolds. The decision specifically to the stay application did not detail the costs awarded.