Law360 Canada ( January 24, 2025, 10:32 AM EST) -- Appeal by Appellants from the motion judge’s decision finding them without valid defense in respect of the Respondent's defamation claim. The case stemmed from a public meeting where the Respondent criticized certain books in school libraries discussing gender identity. The Appellant Piatkowski halted her presentation, citing potential violations of the Human Rights Code. Following this, the Appellant Waterloo Region District School Board (“Board”) made public statements labelling the Respondent's comments as transphobic and questioning the right of trans people to exist. The Appellant Board also removed the meeting’s video from its website, citing concerns over potential Human Rights Code violations. The Respondent sued for defamation and intentional infliction of mental suffering, claiming that the Appellant Board’s statements damaged her reputation and caused emotional distress. The Appellant Board sought to dismiss the case under Ontario's anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) legislation, arguing that the lawsuit unduly limited their expression on matters of public interest. The motion judge dismissed the Respondent's claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering but allowed the defamation claim to proceed. The judge found that the Respondent's defamation claim had substantial merit and that the Appellant Board had no valid defence. The judge also determined that the public interest in allowing the Respondent's claim to continue outweighed the public interest in protecting the Appellant Board’s expression. On appeal, the Appellants argued that the motion judge erred in dismissing their defences of qualified privilege, fair comment, and justification. They also contended that the public interest in protecting their expression outweighed the harm to the Respondent....