The plaintiffs, who are political commentators on social media, brought a defamation action against the defendant, a fellow commentator, for derogatory statements made on a livestream and social media.
The defendant falsely claimed the adult plaintiffs were brother and sister, and insinuated their child's autism was the result of incest.
The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment.
The court found that summary judgment was appropriate for this defamation action and that the statements were defamatory.
The defendant's defences of fair comment and qualified privilege failed, though the defence of consent applied to an apology video the plaintiffs requested.
The court awarded $25,000 in general damages to the adult plaintiffs, reducing the quantum because the plaintiffs had republished the defamatory comments to a larger audience.
