Article content continued

Weeks after he won a seventh term on city council, Armstrong filed the suit against Corus Entertainment – which owns AM980 – McSloy, her husband Jack McSloy, her campaign manager Rob Spencer, and political ally Joseph Wilson.

A judge in a lower court rejected the defendants’ bid to have the case tossed in Sept. 2016, ruling it should proceed to a trial.

The court of appeal overturned that decision Thursday, ruling Armstrong did not suffer much, if any, personal or financial harm as a result of the comments and that the radio station did its due diligence by presenting a balanced story and inviting Armstrong and his lawyer on air. (Both declined.)

The court decision, written by Justice David Doherty, is blunt.

“Not every foot over the defamatory foul line warrants dragging the offender through the litigation process,” he wrote. “Did (Armstrong) actually seek to vindicate his reputation, or did he seek to punish and intimidate his political foe and those associated with her?”

The debate over Armstrong’s conviction wasn’t without consequence. McSloy’s comments “had the potential to do harm” to his reputation, Doherty wrote. But any evidence of damages was related to the sexual assault conviction – which was not disputed – rather than McSloy’s comments about that fact, according to the appeal court.

Armstrong will have to pay the defendants’ costs, an amount that will be decided by the courts. The veteran city councillor and his lawyer, Sean Flaherty, did not return multiple requests for comment on Thursday.

Finding a reasonable balance between crucial public dialogue, and the right not to have your name unfairly smeared, is a challenge Ontario’s political and judicial systems are trying to tackle with a law that discourages so-called “strategic lawsuits against public participation” (SLAPPs), often used to silence critics.

The appeal in the Armstrong case – argued more than a year ago, in June 2017 – was one of the first tests of the 2015 anti-SLAPP legislation.

“Historically, defamation law really favoured the plaintiff, so there was a lot of emphasis put on reputation,” Chamberlain said. “These cases, and the legislation, seem to suggest that sometimes, the public debate is more important.”

Weighing the public interest is the key for candidates – and media outlets – trying to walk that line between critical debate and defamation, she said.

“It’s about deciding what’s actually relevant to someone’s suitability for office, what is just gossip,” Chamberlain said. “The public interest is different than what the public might be interested in.”