Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “grounds to believe” and its formulation of the merits test – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by restricting the factors that the motion judge could consider in assessing whether the alleged harm caused by the expression is sufficiently serious that it outweighs the public interest in protecting the expression – What is the proper interpretation of s. 137.1(4)(a)(ii) of the Courts of Justice Act, and in particular the standard for a motion judge’s “grounds to believe” that a defendant has no “valid defence” to the claim – Whether the motion judge is permitted to weigh evidence or must a motion judge accept a plaintiff’s evidence if it “may be” accepted by a judge or jury – When balancing the public interests under s. 137.1(4)(b), whether the motion judge should consider the issues of causation and foreseeability in respect of the alleged harm to the plaintiff, or is it sufficient for the plaintiff to establish a pecuniary loss, howsoever caused — What is the scope for appellate review of a motion judge’s findings of fact — Whether it is a hearing de novo or whether an appellate court should apply the “palpable and overriding error” standard applicable to findings of fact in other motions. — Appeals dismissed, 09/10/2020 — Supreme Advocacy acted as agents for the Respondent.

2020 SCC 23