The Supreme Court of Canada will not hear United Soils’ appeal of two anti-SLAPP cases.

Earlier this year, the gravel pit company had sought leave from the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal the anti-SLAPP cases of Stouffville residents Kayt Barclay and Katie Mohammed. The court doesn’t release reasons with its decisions on leave applications.

In February, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled against an appeal by United Soils.

The issue dates back to August 2016, when Whitchurch-Stouffville council passed an amendment to allow “acceptable fill from small-quantity sources and hydro-excavation trucks,” notably United Soils Management.

Mohammed and Barclay went on Facebook to criticize the move, with Mohammed referring to the dumping of material from the hydro-vac trucks into the gravel pit site as potentially “poisoning our children,” while Barclay said a councillor who voted in favour of the amendment was “in the pocket of United Soils.”

When United Soils demanded an immediate retraction and apology and included a notice of libel, Mohammed, fearful of legal action, deleted the word “poison” from her Facebook posts, added a comment retracting her “defamatory and slanderous statements” and apologized.

The next day, Mohammed received a statement of claim from United Soils’ lawyer, suing her for defamation and requesting total damages of $120,000.

When faced with the possibility of a libel lawsuit, Barclay deleted her post but was unable to post the requested retraction and apology because the Facebook group was shut down.

United Soils also sued her, claiming total damages of $120,000, but lost both cases.

United Soils appealed, even after the judge in Mohammed’s case, Justice Thomas Lederer, slammed the company.

In Barclay’s case, Justice Janet Wilson was just as harsh. “This is a case of bullying,” she said.

RELATED STORIES GTA Court dismisses company’s libel lawsuit against teacher over Facebook postings

The courts awarded Mohammed $7,500 and Barclay $20,000. United Soils was also ordered to pay $60,000 for the women’s appeal costs, and it is on the hook for considerable court costs: more than $126,400 for Mohammed and $122,200 for Barclay.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Mohammed became the centre of a precedent-setting case in Ontario’s laws protecting speech in the public interest.

The libel lawsuit against Mohammed was dismissed under then relatively new provincial rules targeting “strategic lawsuits against public participation,” known as anti-SLAPP measures. The Stouffville resident was the first defendant to be awarded damages under the legislation.

With files from the Toronto Star’s Alex McKeen