On November 6, 2025, the Manitoba Legislature gave royal assent to the Public Interest Expression Defence Act, Manitoba’s first dedicated anti SLAPP legislation. The statute represents a major shift in how our courts will address lawsuits aimed at suppressing public participation, including defamation claims filed to silence critics, whistle blowers, and survivors of sexual violence.
What is a SLAPP and why does it matter?
A “SLAPP” is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation — a lawsuit used to intimidate, threaten, or silence someone who speaks out on a matter of public interest. SLAPPs are often framed as defamation, but they can take many forms. Regardless of the label, their purpose is the same: to discourage speech by making the cost and stress of litigation the punishment.
SLAPPs have been used across North America to quiet:
- individuals raising concerns about corporate or government accountability
- community activists and environmental advocates
- journalists, bloggers, and online commentators
- survivors of sexual harassment or sexual violence who speak out about their experiences
The new Manitoba law exists to prevent this kind of misuse of the court system.
Why anti SLAPP legislation matters to survivors of sexual violence
One of the clearest examples of SLAPP type behaviour in recent years has involved lawsuits brought against people often women who disclose experiences of sexual harassment, abuse, or assault.
These claims often arise in contexts where a survivor makes a report to an employer, shares a warning within a professional community, or speaks publicly about harm they experienced. Some alleged perpetrators respond not by engaging with the allegation, but by filing a defamation claim. The aim is often not to win at trial, but to:
- intimidate the survivor
- deter others from speaking up
- protect their own reputation through litigation optics
- force silence through the financial and emotional burden of a lawsuit
By creating a fast and structured way to dismiss lawsuits arising from expression on matters of public interest, Manitoba’s new Act directly helps to prevent the justice system from becoming a tool to re victimize and silence survivors.
Importantly, the law is content neutral: it does not presume the truth or falsity of an allegation. What it does is ensure that when someone speaks out matters of public interest including sexual violence the court must consider the public interest in allowing people to share these concerns without fear of retaliation through litigation.
Key features of the Public Interest Expression Defence Act
The Act allows a defendant to bring a dismissal motion if they are sued for making an expression on a matter of public interest. Once the motion is filed:
- the lawsuit is automatically stayed
- the plaintiff must prove the claim has substantial merit
- the defendant must not have a valid defence
- the plaintiff must show that the harm caused by the expression outweighs the public interest in protecting the expression
If the plaintiff cannot meet all elements, the action must be dismissed. Costs follow, and courts may award bad faith damages where a claim was used strategically or abusively.
For survivors of sexual violence, this framework is crucial: disclosures of harm, reports of misconduct, and warnings shared in good faith are often matters of clear public interest. Under the new law, any attempt to suppress these disclosures through litigation faces an immediate and rigorous screening process.
Practical implications for Manitobans
- Broader protection for people who speak up
Citizens who report misconduct, journalists reporting on sensitive issues, employees warning others about workplace safety, and survivors disclosing sexual violence now have stronger legal protection against retaliatory lawsuits.
2. Shifts in defamation and reputation related litigation
While legitimate defamation claims remain viable, plaintiffs must now confront an early merits based challenge. Weak, strategic, or retaliatory claims will face significant obstacles
3. A new strategic reality for businesses and institutions
Organizations considering defamation actions will need to evaluate whether their claim can survive anti SLAPP scrutiny particularly where the dispute touches on public interest issues like workplace harassment, safety, or sexual violence disclosures.
4. Balancing expression with legitimate harm
The Act does not give blanket immunity to speech. If an expression is false, malicious, or causes serious harm that outweighs the public interest in protecting it, the case may still proceed.
Conclusion: A meaningful step toward protecting public participation and vulnerable voices
Manitoba’s adoption of anti SLAPP legislation brings the province in line with a growing national and international movement to ensure that courts are not misused to silence critics or survivors.
For individuals who speak out including victims of sexual violence the Act provides meaningful protection against retaliatory lawsuits and reinforces that public interest expression is essential to a safe, accountable, and transparent society.
DISCLAIMER: This article is presented for informational purposes only. The views expressed are solely the author(s)’ and should not be attributed to any other party, including Taylor McCaffrey LLP. While care is taken to ensure accuracy, before relying upon the information in this article you should seek and be guided by legal advice based on your specific circumstances. The information in this article does not constitute legal advice or solicitation and does not create a solicitor-client relationship. Any unsolicited information sent to the author(s) cannot be considered to be solicitor-client privileged.
If you would like legal advice, kindly contact the author(s) directly or the firm's Chief Operating Officer at pknapp@tmlawyers.com, or 204.988.0356.
Related Resources, Articles & News
See All Resources
Peter Mueller
Partnerpmueller@tmlawyers.com
Peter Mueller is a litigation lawyer who helps businesses, not-for-profits, and employers resolve disputes before courts, arbitration panels, and government tribunals. Licensed in Manitoba and Nunavut, Peter’s practice is designed around dispute resolution and advocacy, providing clear, strategic advice that supports practical business decisions and minimizes risk.