A Niagara-on-the-Lake man is appealing a judge’s refusal to block a $2-million defamation suit filed against him by prominent developer Benny Marotta.

Lawyers for Stewart Hall, a retired NOTL resident, submitted a 40-page legal factum to the Ontario Court of Appeal on May 28 outlining what they say were several serious errors made by Justice Edward Morgan when he allowed a libel suit by Marotta and his company Solmar to proceed.

Among the errors cited was Morgan’s order that Hall pay $89,000 in legal costs to Marotta.

In seeking to have the entire case dismissed, Hall had argued his comments on the NOTL 4U Facebook group should be considered protected speech under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP legislation.

SLAPP laws, or “strategic litigation against public participation,” are intended to prevent powerful people or organizations from using the courts to silence public criticism and comment.

Contacted this week, Hall wouldn’t speak about the latest step in the legal fight.

“We are appealing because we believe this case has all the earmarks of the type of action anti-SLAPP legislation is intended to prevent,” he said in a written statement.

”Unfortunately, I cannot comment further at this time as the case is before the courts.”

On June 26, 2024, Hall posted remarks on NOTL 4U criticizing Marotta and his plans to build a luxury hotel on the former Parliament Oak public school property.

Hall accused Marotta and his companies of engaging in corrupt business practices, offering bribes to politicians and employing aggressive tactics against opponents.

The comments followed a controversial 5-4 town council vote that approved Marotta’s plan for a hotel on the Parliament Oak site, which he purchased in 2022.

Hall removed the comments a week later, on July 3, 2024, after he received a letter of complaint from Marotta lawyer William McDowell. It threatened a libel suit and sought a public apology.

With no resolution in the dispute, a hearing on Hall’s anti-SLAPP motion was held in Superior Court in Toronto on Feb. 12, 2025.

Morgan issued his ruling on March 20, dismissing the application and allowing the libel suit to continue.

He ruled that Hall’s statements went beyond fair comment and could reasonably be seen as defamatory.

In their Court of Appeal filing last week, Hall’s lawyers Michael Robson and Ryder Gilliland argue that among “many palpable and overriding factual errors” in his ruling, the judge was wrong to accuse Hall of using “gratuitous slurs” and “false narratives” in his Facebook posts.

The legal arguments in the factum have not yet been tested in court.

The lawyers also contend that Morgan made “significant errors in the application of the law of defamation.”

“He improperly found grounds to believe that the fair comment defence would not succeed because he deemed the posts to be ‘unfair,’ despite it being well-settled that fairness is not a component of the fair comment defence,” Hall’s lawyers said.

The case is “about a local resident expressing concern in two Facebook posts about a development being approved after a developer with a controversial past had handed a sitting councillor, who would be deciding his recently filed rezoning application, an envelope with $10,000 of cash.”

The judge also didn’t note that the posts were up for only eight days and there is no evidence that Marotta’s reputation was harmed, the factum states.

As well, Hall’s legal team takes issue with Morgan’s description of him as “an outspoken user of social media, especially when it comes to opposing real estate development in the area,” calling it “false and unfair.”

The judge’s assertion also is incorrect that there is no “disparity of wealth” between Hall and Marotta, and that Hall lives in “an affluent neighbourhood in NOTL,” they state.

His lawyers say Hall is an “ordinary retiree” who is being sued by “a well-financed development company and a tremendously successful developer.”

And there is no evidence to support the judge’s statement that Hall engaged in a “smear campaign” against Marotta and some town councillors, the factum says.

The lawyers urge the appeal court to set aside Morgan’s ruling, award Hall damages of $25,000 and reimburse his legal costs.