An Ontario court has dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by Contrans Tank Group against a former truck driver after finding the company’s action was intended to “silence and/or intimidate” the worker rather than address genuine legal concerns.
The decision underscores the importance of anti-SLAPP provisions, which are designed to protect expressions on matters of public interest and weed out claims that unduly limit free expression.
Contrans had employed Z.C. as a truck driver for several months. After the employment relationship ended, a dispute arose over whether Z.C. was fired or left on his own accord. Z.C. claimed he was improperly underpaid on multiple occasions, alleging the company systematically targeted immigrant or ethnic minority drivers by reducing their hours on paycheques. He also said he felt pressured to work on certain holidays because he was a Chinese immigrant.
Email about pay
The conflict intensified when Z.C. emailed former co-workers about his concerns, urging them to check their pays. According to evidence cited by the court, he wrote that Contrans “isn’t an honest company” and told colleagues to see if they too had experienced “improper pay reductions.”
In response, Contrans launched a defamation claim and sought injunctions prohibiting Z.C. from communicating with any current or former employees about the company’s wage practices, using contact information of employees, or sharing details related to how the employer pays its personnel.
Shortly after the lawsuit began, Z.C. brought a motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act — an anti-SLAPP provision. The court stated that anti-SLAPP procedures are intended as a “quick and inexpensive mechanism” to end lawsuits that stifle public discussion on matters of public interest. Once a motion under these provisions has been “made,” the legislation bars any further steps in the proceeding until the motion is resolved.
Contrans later served a notice of discontinuance to end its own claim. However, the court found that this step was prohibited under the anti-SLAPP legislation because it constituted a “further step” in the case. As the judge put it: “I find that the notice of discontinuance filed by the plaintiff in this action is ineffective. Section 137.1(5) operates to stay any further steps which includes the plaintiff’s notice of discontinuance.”
Defamation action?
Having deemed the notice of discontinuance invalid, the court proceeded to assess whether Z.C.’s communications indeed warranted a defamation action. It applied the two-part test under the anti-SLAPP framework. First, the moving party—in this case, Z.C.—had to show that the lawsuit arose from an expression relating to a matter of public interest.
The court concluded that was true because other drivers, and indeed anyone considering employment at Contrans, would be interested to know about any alleged “systemic and intentional practices” that reduce wages.
Next, the burden shifted to the employer. Contrans had to show “grounds to believe” that its defamation claim had substantial merit, Z.C. had no valid defence, and the harm the company suffered outweighed the public interest in protecting his expression. While the court acknowledged the statements were defamatory on their face — because they suggested dishonesty and discrimination — it did not find it clear that Z.C. lacked a valid defence of truth or justification.
Sworn evidence of routine underpayments
Z.C. provided sworn evidence that he routinely discovered underpayments on his paycheques, believed it was a “systematic” and “intentional” practice, and had spoken to colleagues who similarly complained. The court noted it was still “very early in the procedural life” of the litigation, with no documents exchanged or discoveries completed. Contrans offered little specific evidence to refute these allegations, other than calling them “false and offensive.”
Because there was a “basis in the record and the law” that Z.C. might prove the truth of his statements, the court held there were grounds to believe the employer’s lawsuit would not succeed. As a result, it dismissed Contrans’ action under section 137.1.
Bad faith?
The final question was whether Contrans acted in bad faith or for an improper purpose. Under subsection 137.1(9), a defendant can receive damages if the court finds the lawsuit was initiated to punish or intimidate. The judge concluded: “I find it to be clear on the evidence filed that the plaintiff commenced this action to silence and/or intimidate the defendant.”
The court pointed to Contrans’ delay in seeking any real remedy, noting the company made no immediate injunction application after suing. Instead, it waited until after Z.C. had filed the anti-SLAPP motion and completed the required steps, then tried to discontinue the case without costs.
Damages for stress, anxiety
Accordingly, the court awarded Z.C. $5,000 for stress and anxiety caused by what it determined was a tactic designed to muzzle him. In addition, because a successful anti-SLAPP motion typically leads to an award of full indemnity costs, the court granted him all costs associated with defending the lawsuit and bringing the motion.
In the end, the court’s message is clear: if an employer brings forward a defamation claim primarily to deter an individual from speaking out on issues that could be considered matters of public interest, it risks running afoul of the anti-SLAPP provisions. Employers should think carefully before initiating defamation proceedings tied to workplace disputes, particularly where allegations of wage-related improprieties or discriminatory practices may affect other workers.
For more information, see Contrans Tank Group GP Inc. v. Chen, 2024 ONSC 5441 (CanLII).
