Oro-Medonte mayor settles suit

Hughes took constituent to small-claims court over comments on newspaper website

By Andrew Philips Orillia Packet & Times June 7 2017

Oro-Medonte Township’s mayor has settled a lawsuit against one of his constituents in a defamation case that also served to bring the province’s anti-SLAPP law to the forefront.

Mayor Harry Hughes had taken Ann Truyens to court over claims made against him in the comment section of the Orillia Packet & Times’ website in 2015.

While a joint confidentiality agreement covers the settlement signed in Barrie on Monday, lawyers from both sides wouldn’t discuss what it covered or its specifics.

However, both Hughes and Truyens addressed the lawsuit that began after she used a fictitious name questioning the mayor’s integrity.

“The purpose of me dealing with this was to vindicate (myself),” Hughes said. “I’m satisfied that the ruling of the court does that.”

Truyens, meanwhile, said she couldn’t speak to the settlement, which was reached a day before the case was slated to return to Barrie small claims court, because she and Hughes signed a non-disclosure agreement.

“He’s dropped the case at the 11th hour and we agreed to keep it confidential,” she said. “I’m very relieved, to say the least. I thought he’d keep up the pressure as long as possible.”

Ontario’s anti-SLAPP (strategic litigation against public participation) law came into force in 2015. It is intended to discourage lawsuits aimed at the right of citizens to express themselves freely on matters of public interest without facing the threat of proceedings intended primarily to silence them.

The legislation also allows judges to dismiss these kinds of lawsuits when they are satisfied that the underlying case arises from an expression made by the person that relates to a matter of pubic interest.

An obvious example involves defamation actions by proponents of a project, often large corporations, against individuals opposed to these projects on public interest grounds.

But the Truyens-Hughes case also represented one of the first times a defendant attempted to have a defamation lawsuit thrown out by employing Ontario’s anti-SLAPP law.

“The court has made it clear that individuals who make defamatory statements that clearly go beyond the public interest can’t hide behind the anti-SLAPP law to shield themselves from defamation suits,” said Mark Shapiro, of Dickinson Wright in Toronto, who represented Hughes.

The case between the two Oro-Medonte residents began after the mayor recused himself from any discussions relating to a Burl’s Creek land bylaw due to his belief that he might have an indirect pecuniary interest over a relative’s seasonal job at the event grounds.

Truyens, unhappy with the mayor’s actions, posted what Deputy Judge Brian Kinnear characterized as “somewhat intemperate” comments online.

“Some of the defendant’s comments comparing the mayor to a ‘weasel,’ stating he does not ‘have a conscience,’ stating that he ‘sold his electors out’ and that he ‘violated our trust,’ seem again extreme and not to be a proportionate response to the mayor’s decision that he had a potential conflict of interest on this issue,” Kinnear wrote in a 17-page decision released last October.

After Hughes filed his claim, Truyens sought to have the action dismissed by invoking the anti-SLAPP law.

But in his judgment, Kinnear allowed the mayor’s suit to proceed. He concluded that the defamation case had “substantial merit,” that Truyens did not have a “valid defence” to the defamatory comments and that the harm likely to be suffered by the mayor if his action was dismissed was “sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting the defendant’s expression.”

Hughes said Kinnear’s ruling determined Truyens went beyond acceptable free speech.

“There’s a line that people can speak out on,” he said, noting that line stops at personal attacks.

Hughes said he expects the case will be reviewed by public officials across the province, who might find themselves similarly attacked on social media.

“I hope that all elected officials will breathe easier because this is becoming rampant,” Hughes said.

Truyens said she feels vindicated after two years of dealing with the issue in court.

“I just stood by my principles and believe I had done nothing wrong,” she said.

“I just made my comments about the township’s handling of Burl’s Creek. These were my personal comments. I was only representing myself. This Burl’s Creek thing is a big issue and it’s far from over.”