refusing to dismiss the action pursuant to s. 137.1 of the Courts
of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, the “Anti-SLAPP”1 provi-
sions. He submits that the motion judge erred in coming to the
(1) The appellant’s tweets did not relate to a matter of public
(2) The defence of fair comment was not available to the appellant
and that the notice provisions of the Libel and Slander Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12 are inapplicable to Internet publications.
(3) The public interest in allowing the proceeding to continue
outweighed the public interest in protecting the appellant’s
 In oral argument, the appellant submitted that the motion
judge should have found that the impugned expression related to
a matter of public interest and that in the absence of any harm
to the respondent, the action should have been dismissed without
an analysis of the merits of the claim and the availability of various defences. The appellant also seeks leave to appeal from the
costs order made against him.
 For the reasons that follow, I dismiss the appeal but
grant leave to appeal from the costs order and vary that order
 The appellant and the respondent are from opposite ends of
the “Twitterverse”. The motion judge described the respondent
as “the principle of an online media outlet, Rebel News, which is
known as an online media site that comments on political and
social issues, espousing right-wing or right-leaning views”: Levant
v. Day,  O.J. No. 5359, 2017 ONSC 5956, 17 C.P.C. (8th) 183
(S.C.J.), at para. 6.
 The motion judge described the appellant as “a regular participant on social media for over a decade” who maintained a blog
named “Canadian Cynic”: Levant, at para. 7. He expressed his
views almost exclusively on Twitter. The appellant describes his
views as liberal, progressive and left-wing.
 From early May to early June 2016, the appellant posted
tweets highly critical of the respondent and of Rebel News relating
1 SLAPP means Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation.