B. Statutory Scheme
 Sections 137.1(1)-(4) of the Courts of Justice Act provide
Dismissal of proceeding that limits debate
137.1(1) The purposes of this section and sections 137.2 to 137.5 are,
(a) to encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public
(b) to promote broad participation in debates on matters of public
(c) to discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting
expression on matters of public interest; and
(d) to reduce the risk that participation by the public in debates on
matters of public interest will be hampered by fear of legal action.
(2) In this section,
“expression” means any communication, regardless of whether it is made
verbally or non-verbally, whether it is made publicly or privately, and whether
or not it is directed at a person or entity.
Order to dismiss
(3) On motion by a person against whom a proceeding is brought, a judge
shall, subject to subsection (4), dismiss the proceeding against the person if
the person satisfies the judge that the proceeding arises from an expression
made by the person that relates to a matter of public interest.
(4) A judge shall not dismiss a proceeding under subsection (3) if the re-
sponding party satisfies the judge that,
(a) there are grounds to believe that,
( i) the proceeding has substantial merit, and
( ii) the moving party has no valid defence in the proceeding; and
(b) the harm likely to be or have been suffered by the responding party
as a result of the moving party’s expression is sufficiently serious
that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue
outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression.
(1) Did the appellant’s tweets relate to a matter of public
 The motion judge held that the appellant had failed to satisfy
his onus of showing that the expressions related to a matter of