A Mississauga resident who challenged the proposed redevelopment of Sheridan Mall has won an appeal court ruling keeping a developer’s $300,000 lawsuit against him dismissed and preserving his $25,000 damages award.
Canadian Legal News reported that the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision on May 15, rejecting Sheridan Retail Inc.’s substantive appeal. The court did, however, reduce the costs payable by the developer from $156,394.54 to $75,000.
The dispute centred on Pierre Roy’s complaints to the City of Mississauga and public opposition to aspects of the redevelopment. The appeal court confirmed that the lawsuit was properly dismissed under Ontario’s legislation protecting public-interest expression from lawsuits that unduly restrict it.
Sheridan Retail Inc., or SRI, is a subsidiary of Dunpar Developments Inc. established for the mall project. Its proposal for the property in Mississauga’s Sherwood Forest neighbourhood included storefront renovations and two 15-storey condominium towers.
Roy, an engineering student living nearby, served as a development liaison with the Sherwood Forest Residents Association. He raised concerns about the project’s size, sustainability, affordable housing and alleged safety and regulatory problems during renovation work.
According to the court’s reasons, Roy submitted numerous complaints to the city between May and December 2023, some supported by photographs. Inspectors made multiple visits, typically issuing remedial orders that SRI complied with.
SRI accused Roy of trespassing to obtain some photographs after it issued a notice warning him against returning to the property. Roy denied entering restricted areas to take them, saying some images came from online, his father or locations outside the mall.
Roy also spoke at public meetings about the proposal. The city ultimately rejected the project, and SRI filed its lawsuit on December 29, 2023, alleging defamation, interference with economic relations, inducing breach of contract and trespass.
The developer abandoned the defamation claim before Roy’s dismissal motion was heard. It argued that the remaining case concerned trespass rather than public expression.
Superior Court Justice Renu J. Mandhane rejected that argument. She found that the alleged entries were closely connected to Roy’s complaints, since SRI itself said he entered the property to gather information for them.
Writing for a unanimous appeal panel, Justice David Paciocco upheld that analysis. The court found that the legal labels attached to claims did not determine whether the proceeding arose from expression.
The appeal court also agreed that SRI had not supplied sufficiently specific evidence of economic loss. Even if Roy had technically trespassed, it found no demonstrated real damage sufficient to outweigh protection of his public-interest expression.
The $25,000 damages award remained because the appeal court upheld Mandhane’s finding that SRI used the lawsuit to intimidate Roy and discourage his participation in the planning process.
The costs ruling changed because Mandhane had decided on full indemnity costs before receiving submissions. The appeal court said both parties needed an opportunity to address that issue.
