SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
concerning “public petition-related activities.”14
Australia adopted limited protection against SLAPPs through the Public Participation Act
in 2008 after the Guns v Alexander Marr case, brought against environmental groups in various
regions of the country.15 Responses were welcomed but the Australian Public Participation Act
falls short of the protective approach against abusive litigation.16 The Act puts emphasis on the
“improper purpose” of the claimant’s suit, defined as a suit that aims to discourage public participation, divert the defendant’s resources, and punish the defendant’s public participation.17
In Canada, anti-SLAPP statutes were adopted in Ontario,18 British Columbia19 and Quebec20 and
are considered by many as models of strong protection against abusive litigation. In particular, the
Ontario and Quebec laws have been promoted in civil law countries due to similar legal traditions.21
The key feature of anti-SLAPP laws is to a) prevent the chilling effect of SLAPPs on the
protection of human rights, freedom of expression and participation in matters of public interest;
b) allow early dismissal of these cases and c) provide the SLAPP targets with a remedy for costs
accrued in legal proceedings.
Protection against SLAPPs in international human rights standards
Although the problem of SLAPPs has been increasingly recognised by international and regional human rights bodies, no specific/dedicated legal instrument has been adopted on the international level.
However, the UN, in the 2022 Resolution on the safety of journalists —adopted by consensus
at the Human Rights Council on 6 October 2022—, introduced new commitments on SLAPPs. It
expressed concern about the rise in the use of these lawsuits to exercise pressure, intimidate, or
exhaust the resources and morale of journalists, then called on governments to “take measures to
protect journalists and media workers from strategic lawsuits against public participation, where
appropriate, including by adopting laws and policies that prevent and/or alleviate such cases and
provide support to victims.”22
14 See New York Civil Rights Law, Sections 70-a and 76-a, Actions involving public petition and participation; recovery of damages
Reporters; see also Committee for Freedom of the Press, Anti -SLAPP Legal Guide, New York.
15 Supreme Court of Victoria, Gunns Limited & Ors v Alexander Marr & Ors, 18 July 2005 [2005] VSC 251.
16 See e.g. European Parliament, The Use of SLAPPs to Silence Journalists, NGOs, and Civil Society, Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, June 2021, p. 17; M. Deturbide and E. J. Hughes, ‘Canada’ in Jan M Smits (ed) Elgar Encyclopaedia of Comparative Law (2nd edn, Edward Elgar 2012) 132-136.
17 Australian Capital Territory, Protection of Public Participation Act.
18 Protection of Public Participation Act, 2015, S.O. 2015, c. 23, 2018 ONCA 685, 142 O.R. (3d) 161.
19 Galloway v. A.B., 2019 BCCA 385, 30 B.C.L.R. (6th) 245.
20 Klepper v. Lulham, 2017 QCCA 2069 (CanLII).
21 The Use of SLAPPs to SIlence Journalists, NGOs and Civil Society, op.cit., p. 17.
22 See Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Irene
Khan, Reinforcing media freedom and the safety of journalists in the digital age, A/HRC/50/29, 20 April 2022; or the OSCE, Office
of the Representative on Freedom of the Media, Legal Harassment and Abuse of the Judicial System Against the Media, Special
Report, November 2021.
9