this case, there is no public interest in protecting said [tweets]”:
Levant, at para. 54.
 Sometimes claims of defamation may exact too great
a cost to the public interest in promoting and protecting freedom of expression in relation to matters of public interest:
Pointes, at para. 86.
 As pointed out in the Anti-SLAPP Advisory Panel,2 Report
to the Attorney General (Ontario: Ministry of the Attorney Gen-
eral, 2010), at para. 37:
If an action against expression on a matter of public interest is based on
a technically valid cause of action but seeks a remedy for only insignificant
harm to reputation, business or personal interests, the action’s negative
impact on freedom of expression may be clearly disproportionate to any valid
purpose the litigation might serve.
 Here, the alleged defamatory statements accused the
respondent of defrauding victims of the Fort McMurray forest
fires. While the harm suffered or likely to be suffered may often
be measured primarily by the monetary damages suffered or
likely to be suffered, the “preservation of one’s good reputation”
has inherent value beyond the monetary value of the claim:
Pointes, at para. 88. Here, we are told the appellant had around
11,000 followers on Twitter. There is no indication the statements
were made to a private, or closed group. These were not statements made to a small group and quickly retracted. The statements attribute serious criminality to the respondent. On his
discovery, the appellant accepted that donors were receiving
tax receipts for their donations. He admitted that he had not
made any inquiries of the government about matching donations.
He also admitted that he had no information that the respondent
received any personal benefit from the fundraising campaign.
 The appellant submits that the respondent is a “noisy
troublemaker” who does not shy away from controversy, and has
participated in other defamation cases, as both plaintiff and
defendant. The appellant submits that the respondent’s platform,
Rebel Media, has relentlessly attacked and denigrated individuals
and groups. The appellant further submits that the respondent’s
reputation is so bad that the impugned tweets cannot have
caused him any damages, especially since others made similar
comments. Even if the appellant’s characterization of the
respondent’s reputation were correct, and I make no finding on
2 The Anti-SLAPP Advisory Panel was assembled in 2010 to advise the Attorney
General of Ontario on the potential content of legislation against SLAPPs and
to help develop a test for courts to quickly recognize a SLAPP suit.