Newman’s legal team sought a dismissal of the lawsuit under the province’s new anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) legislation and the Protection of Public Participation Act (PPPA).

Meanwhile, Campbell contended that the claim should have its day in court as his clients have allegedly experienced loss and humiliation in both their professional and personal lives.

The PPPA specifies the defendant must establish the case arises from expression related to a matter of public interest — a factor Newman’s lawyers argued was easily met as her expression was about a public figure seeking high political office and his alleged conduct.

“I have little difficulty in concluding that Ms Newman’s expressions related to a matter of public interest,” Fitzpatrick wrote in his decision.

“There is no question that Ms Newman’s statements were strongly opposed to Mr. Rizvee’s candidacy. There is no question that she at times used colourful and perhaps controversial language. However, these elements do not alter the substance of her expressions from being in the public interest.”

The legislation also places a heavy burden on the plaintiff, who must establish that: their claim has substantial merit, the defendant has no valid defence and that the harm they’re likely to suffer is so serious, the public interest in allowing the lawsuit to proceed outweighs the public interest in protecting freedom of expression.

On the substantial merit front, Fitzpatrick’s verdict acknowledges the plaintiffs established that “there is credible and compelling evidence supporting the claim as being a serious one with a reasonable likelihood of success.”

But when it came to proving the defendant had no valid defence, Fitzpatrick ruled that the Rizvees didn’t meet this burden and that Newman likely had valid defences to the defamation claim, including a defence based on fair comment, hence the granting of the dismissal motion.

When it came to proving that Rizvee and Azim’s reputations were damaged by Newman’s writings, Fitzpatrick said the plaintiffs “provided no meaningful evidence of harm to their reputation attributable to the comments made by Ms Newman.”

“Mr. Rizvee’s suggestion that Ms Newman’s statements ‘likely had some effect’ on his loss in the 2015 federal election is also speculative,” he said.

He goes on to say that, in his view, “the harm suffered or likely to be suffered by the plaintiffs from Ms Newman’s comments is at the lower end of the spectrum. This would weigh strongly in favour of dismissing the defamation claims.”

The decision addressed the amount of damages being sought in the case.

“In defamation cases, there can be a wide range to the ultimate damages awarded. However, on the face of this claim it is difficult to see how the plaintiffs could quantify a $16-million damages award,” wrote Fitzpatrick. “This would also weigh strongly in favour of dismissing the defamation claims.”

The judge also determined that there’s evidence of “libel chill” from the plaintiff’s claim.

“Ms Newman’s evidence was that the costs alone from this action could bankrupt her,” he said. “It is a reasonable inference that this would restrain both Ms Newman’s inclination and that of others to comment on matters of public interest. The public interest in allowing the proceeding to continue here is strongly outweighed by the public interest in the impugned communication.”

Fitzpatrick concluded by encouraging both parties to discuss and come to an agreement on the costs of the motion.

In a statement to the Champion, Campbell pointed out that the courts have interpreted the PPPA very few times.

“As interpreted in this case, there is a very real danger that the law can also be used as a shield behind which persons can hide and (allegedly) wantonly defame public figures with impunity, as we believe has happened in this case,” he said.

Campbell’s statement says that the malicious prosecution claim is proceeding.

From Hasan’s perspective, since the decision found there was “no malice” on the part of his client, it’s “implicit” in the judgment that the malicious prosecution claim is unlikely to succeed.



