Ontario Court Of Appeal Clarifies Test For Anti-SLAPP Motions In Benchwood Builders, Inc. v. Prescott, 2025 ONCA 171

A Key Decision Refining Ontario's Anti-SLAPP Framework

The Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Benchwood Builders, Inc. v. Prescott, 2025 ONCA 171, provides important guidance on the interpretation and application of Ontario's anti-SLAPP legislation under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The ruling clarifies the boundaries between legitimate public participation and purely private disputes, particularly in the increasingly common context of online reviews and social-media commentary.

Background

Cynthia Prescott and David Green (the “Homeowners”) hired Benchwood Builders Inc. (“Benchwood”), to perform renovations on their home. When the relationship deteriorated, the Homeowners posted highly critical comments about Benchwood on social media.

Benchwood commenced a defamation action, alleging the posts were false and damaging. The Homeowners responded by bringing a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, seeking to dismiss the lawsuit as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”).

The motion judge granted the anti-SLAPP motion and dismissed the defamation action. Benchwood appealed.

The Court of Appeal's Decision

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding three key errors in the Superior Court's decision:

1. The expression did not relate to a matter of public interest under s. 137.1(3);
2. The motion judge misapplied the “no valid defence” criterion under s. 137.1(4)(a)(ii); and
3. The public interest weighing exercise under s. 137.1(4)(b) was not comprehensive.

1. Defining “Public Interest” Under s. 137.1(3)

The Court of Appeal confirmed that not all expressions that attract public curiosity amount to matters of public interest.

Here, the online comments arose from “an especially bitter private dispute” between a homeowner and a contractor. While members of the public may have found the dispute interesting, it did not engage any broader social concern or issue of public policy.

The decision reinforces that private consumer disputes do not, on their own, fall within the scope of public interest expression contemplated by Ontario's anti-SLAPP legislation.

2. Clarifying the “No Valid Defence” Analysis

The Court of Appeal expressed concern where some judges have applied the anti-SLAPP legislation to mean that if the defamed party cannot show that it has an open and shut case against the defamer – that is, cannot show that “the moving party has no valid defence” – then the defamation action must be dismissed as an anti-SLAPP action and the purported defamer escapes.

The Court rejected this “open-and-shut” approach, instead opting to clarify that where it is not immediately clear that the defendant has no valid defence, the court should proceed to the public interest weighing stage under s. 137.1(4)(b).

3. Approaching the Public Interest Weighing Exercise

At the final stage of the anti-SLAPP analysis, courts must weigh the harm likely suffered by the plaintiff against the public interest in protecting the defendant's expression. The Court described this balancing as the “fundamental crux” of the anti-SLAPP analysis.

The Court of Appeal found that the Homeowners' statements concerned a home renovation gone wrong. The online posts did not relate to a matter of public interest nor to safeguarding the fundamental value of public participation in democracy. This was a private dispute with little display of the classic indicia of a SLAPP.

Therefore, the Court found that this was a case in which the straight logic of a private dispute should apply, rather than anti-SLAPP legislation, and there was no reason to stop the defamation action from proceeding.

Conclusion

Benchwood Builders, Inc. v. Prescott reinforces the intended objectives of Ontario's anti-SLAPP regime. The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that while robust public debate deserves protection, anti-SLAPP provisions are not a shield for defamatory or vindictive speech arising from purely private disputes. The Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave to appeal the Court of Appeal's judgment.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.