The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has dismissed a $300,000 lawsuit filed by a developer against an engineering student for trying to “silence” his concerns about the redevelopment of a Mississauga, Ont., mall and plans to build adjacent residential towers.
Sheridan Retail Inc., a subsidiary of Dunpar Homes, filed the lawsuit against Pierre Roy alleging defamation and trespassing on the same day the City of Mississauga rejected its proposal for two 15-storey condominium or apartment buildings on the land surrounding Sheridan Mall in December 2023.
“It was a very stressful situation to figure out what to do,” Roy said in an interview on CBC’s Metro Morning. “Particularly in the middle of one of my final terms of school.”
Roy had voiced concerns about the environmental sustainability and housing affordability of the developer’s proposal at community consultation meetings.
He also took photos of construction work underway at the mall — which first opened in 1969 — and reported his safety concerns to the city, which investigated and found the developer had failed to obtain building permits, according to the court decision, which was released on Tuesday.
Justice Renu Mandhane ordered the developer to pay Roy $25,000 in damages and to cover all of the University of Waterloo student’s legal costs.
“By claiming damages of $300,000, the developer clearly sought to intimidate a 24-year-old university student and local resident into silence,” the judge wrote in her scathing decision.
“Substantial damages are warranted because the developer caused harm to the student by publicly ridiculing and belittling him and his family, threatening him with spurious legal action to silence him in advance of city council’s vote, adopting heavy-handed litigation tactics, and chilling his continued public expression about the mall redevelopment project.”
The lawsuit was dismissed under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP legislation, which stands for “strategic lawsuits against public participation.” The province introduced the legislation in 2015 to prevent the courts from being used for gag proceedings to silence freedom of expression in the public interest.
In response to Roy’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Sheridan Retail conceded that Roy was engaging in public expression, but the developer asked the court to allow it to proceed with the lawsuit by limiting it to the trespassing claim.
But Mandhane said granting the request would be “tantamount to sanctioning its continued use of the legal system to silence the student.”
“While the developer tries to cast the student as ‘obsessive,’ I think the more appropriate word is engaged,” the judge wrote.
“The student raised safety concerns that were investigated by the city and required the developer to make changes to the construction site. The student raised concerns about housing affordability and environmental sustainability — social issues that are immensely important to young people and clearly worthy of serious public debate.”
In an emailed statement, Sheridan Retail told CBC Toronto that the company has serious concerns with the decision, which it believes “was wrong on both fact and law,” and will be taking its case to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
“[Sheridan Retail’s] primary purpose for bringing the lawsuit against Mr. Roy was to stop him from continuing to enter areas of the mall that were under construction and closed to the public given the inherent safety risks and to protect its property rights,” the statement said.
The developer said it has spent millions of dollars improving the mall, has attracted new tenants and has invested tens of millions of dollars on residential redevelopment of the property.
Sheridan Retail also appealed the city’s rejection of its development applications for two apartment buildings to the Ontario Land Tribunal. During that process, the city says technical details were addressed and it accepted a settlement, which the tribunal approved this January.
The developer is now allowed to proceed with building two 15-storey condo or apartment buildings with 631 units, according to the city.
Roy said he was never interested in stopping the development. “I think that it makes a lot of sense on the site,” he said. “I really just wanted it to proceed with the best intentions for the community.”
He said the dismissal of the case against him shows that the courts protect the public’s right to be participating in these kinds of proceedings.
“It serves as an example to those who may be facing similar cases or those bad actors who may be thinking about stifling free expression,” Roy said.
