Lawyers representing Tamara Lich and Chris Barber and other defendants will appear in court Thursday, attempting to dismiss a class-action lawsuit brought forth by Zexi Li and several other residents of Ottawa.
The defendants have filed an application to dismiss the $290 million class-action lawsuit as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), meaning a lawsuit designed to silence the expression of peaceful protesters.
The lawsuit was filed against Tamara Lich, Chris Barber and other participants in the Freedom Convoy in February 2022, according to the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF).
It was filed on behalf of Ottawa residents and businesses by Li and Geoffrey Delaney, Happy Goat Coffee Company, and a local union. The lawsuit is seeking damages against peaceful protesters for allegedly causing a nuisance.
Additionally, the lawsuit is seeking damages from citizens who donated to the Freedom Convoy.
“The fundamental Charter freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly must be vigorously protected and defended, whether they are attacked directly by government or indirectly through a misguided civil action,” said JCCF president John Carpay.
SLAPP lawsuits are utilized to silence the freedom of expression through litigation, which is why the JCCF is seeking to have this case dismissed as a SLAPP action.
“Zexi Li’s lawsuit engages the very purpose that ‘anti-SLAPP’ legislation was designed to address: an attempt to silence peaceful expression, and the right of defendants to participate in public debate,” said lawyer James Manson, who will be arguing the motion on Thursday.
Anti-SLAPP motions are available to any defendant who has proceedings against them.
The defendants must demonstrate that the proceeding against them is rooted in their expression which “relates to a matter of public interest.”
If the defendant successfully demonstrates that their expression is a matter of public interest then it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to present an argument that their lawsuit has “substantial merit” and that the defendant’s case is not valid.
A judge must then decide if the defendant’s expression outweighs the plaintiff’s allegations of harm.
Lich and Barber’s defence argues that the proceedings against them do come from their expression, as well as that of the people who donated to the protest.
They also argue that their expression against the Government of Canada’s response to Covid mandates is of public interest.
Additionally, they argue that Li’s class-action lawsuit does not have “substantial merit” as it lacks a factual and legal basis.
Finally, they argue that their defence is valid in that their defendant’s expression does outweigh any nuisance accused of them.
If the defence is successful at demonstrating to the judge that the class-action lawsuit is a SLAPP action, brought forth to punish the defendants for participating in the protest, then all or part of the lawsuit will be dismissed.
