Background:

• The appellants, homeowners in Muskoka Bay, disputed with the respondents over a retirement facility development adjacent to their property.
• A 2017 settlement required the respondents to protect certain trees.
• In November 2022, the appellants claimed non-compliance, seeking damages and relief for breach of contract.

Legal Proceedings:

• The appellants moved to dismiss the respondents' counterclaim under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, alleging it was a SLAPP suit.
• The motion judge found the appellants' expressions were about private property issues, not public interest, and dismissed the motion.

Appeal:

• The appellants argued the motion judge erred in not recognizing their expressions as matters of public interest and improperly considered their motivations.
• The appeal court upheld the motion judge’s decision, agreeing the expressions related to private concerns, not public interest.

Conclusion:

• The appeal was dismissed.
• Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the respondent.

Key Points:

• SLAPP motions require expressions to relate to public interest.
• The threshold for public interest is low, but must be more than private disputes.
• The court distinguished between private property issues and broader public concerns.