I agree with what Ezra has said.
There's a reason that the traditional protections of the common law arose over centuries. They were worked out as a balance to enable people to access the justice system in reasonable ways. It seems very attractive to think of a way that shortcuts all that to say, oh well, it's unfair if somebody has to go and see a real lawyer, write a cheque for a retainer, and take it to a real court; couldn't we do something that provides him with drive-through justice at no cost?
No, you can't. There's a reason these protections arose over centuries: because they work.
It is horrifying to me that we seem to think that in the role of opinion and speech, of all areas, that is the case for having this kind of drive-through justice system. It's not at all. If you're going to drag someone into court for their opinion, the least you can do is respect the traditional protections of the legal system and not get it short-tracked for you, and not get your tab picked up, as Richard Warman has had, for seven years now by the Canadian taxpayer.