ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ZEXI LI, HAPPY GOAT COFFEE COMPANY INC,

Once that has been demonstrated, the burden shifts to the responding party (the plaintiff) to satisfy the motion judge that there are grounds to believe the proceeding has substantial merit and the moving party has no valid defence, and that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighs the public interest in protecting the expression.6 5 Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990 c. [...] Indeed, the Supreme Court of Canada has noted that “courts must be acutely aware of the limited record, the timing of the motion in the litigation process, and the potentiality of future evidence arising”.7 The anti-SLAPP regime is a screening mechanism for weeding out obviously unmeritorious claims, and it is not a trial of the issues or a deep dive into the merits.8 21. [...] The defences of the Moving Parties appear to be that: a) they deny the fact and/or nature of the activities alleged by the Plaintiffs and the Moving Parties’ involvement in these activities; b) if the Plaintiffs did sustain damages and losses these were “caused by the failure of the Ottawa Police Services to ensure that Freedom Convoy vehicles did not park in downtown Ottawa at the protest, as ori. [...] To the extent that the Moving Parties deny that the honking, idling and blockading of streets occurred or that the Moving Parties played a role in these activities as alleged, the Moving Parties’ version of the facts is not supported by the evidence on this motion. [...] As the Ontario Court of Appeal observed in Henco Industries, The immediate enforcement and prosecution of violations of the law may not always be the wise course of action or the course of action that best serves the public interest.