Prevention of Proceedings that Hamper Expression on Matters of Public Interest Act

Summary#

This bill creates a fast way for a judge to stop court cases that are used to limit people’s speech on matters of public interest. It lets a person who is sued over their expression ask the court to dismiss the case early if the speech was about a public issue. The goal is to protect public debate and reduce fear of being sued for speaking out.

Key changes:

• Lets a person sued over their expression ask a judge to dismiss the case early if the case arises from their expression on a matter of public interest.
• Requires the judge to dismiss unless the other side shows the case likely has strong merit, the speaker has no valid defence, and the harm is serious enough that continuing the case is in the public interest.
• Pauses all other steps in the lawsuit until the dismissal application (and any appeal) is finally decided.
• Presumes “enhanced costs” (higher-than-normal legal costs) for the speaker if the case is dismissed; allows damages if the suit was in bad faith or for an improper purpose.
• Limits cross‑examination on the application to seven hours per party, unless a judge extends it for fairness.
• Clarifies in defamation law that “qualified privilege” (a defence that protects certain good‑faith statements) about public‑interest matters between people directly involved still applies even if media or others witness or report the communication.
• Not retroactive (it applies only to future cases).

What it means for you#

• People who speak on public issues (residents, advocates, community members, journalists):

  • If you are sued over your expression on a public issue, you can ask the court to dismiss the case early.
  • If you win the application, you are presumed to get enhanced costs, and you may also get damages if the judge finds the case was brought in bad faith or for an improper purpose.
  • All steps in the lawsuit stop while the court decides your application and any appeal.
  • “Expression” covers any communication (spoken, written, non‑verbal; public or private; directed at a person or not).
  • In defamation matters, qualified privilege for communications on public‑interest topics between people with a direct interest is not lost just because media or others were present or later reported it.

• People or businesses considering suing over someone’s statements:

  • Your case may be dismissed early if it targets expression on a public issue.
  • To avoid dismissal, you must show there are grounds to believe your claim has substantial merit, the defendant has no valid defence, and the harm is serious enough that the public interest in continuing outweighs the public interest in protecting the expression.
  • You risk paying enhanced costs if the case is dismissed, and possibly damages if the judge finds bad faith or an improper purpose.
  • You generally cannot amend your pleadings (your formal court documents) to avoid a dismissal order, unless a judge allows it.

• Courts and lawyers:

  • Must schedule and hear these applications as soon as practicable and prioritize appeals from dismissal orders.
  • Cross‑examination time on the application is capped at seven hours per party (with limited exceptions).
  • Other remedies in law remain available in addition to this process.

• Media:

  • Reporting on or witnessing a communication about a public‑interest matter between people with a direct interest does not remove the speakers’ qualified privilege in defamation law.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

• Private costs may shift: if a case is dismissed, the person sued is presumed to receive enhanced costs from the party who brought the case.
• Judges may also award damages against a party who brought the case in bad faith or for an improper purpose.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to protect open debate on public issues and reduce the “chilling effect” of legal threats.
• An early dismissal process could save time and money for people who are sued for speaking on public matters.
• The test for keeping a case alive targets only claims with real merit and serious harm, balancing free expression with protection from genuine injury.
• Enhanced costs and possible damages may discourage using lawsuits to intimidate speakers.
• Clarifying qualified privilege in defamation could make it safer to discuss public‑interest matters among those directly involved, even if the media are present.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is that legitimate claims (for serious defamation or other harms) might be dismissed too early, before full evidence is heard.
• The definition of “expression” is very broad; this may make it easier for harmful or misleading statements to claim protection, depending on how courts apply “public interest.”
• Limiting cross‑examination time and pausing all other steps could restrict fact‑finding and delay remedies for people who suffered real harm.
• Enhanced cost awards and possible damages for bad faith may discourage some people with valid claims from going to court.
• The bill does not define “public interest” in detail, which may lead to uncertainty until courts provide guidance.