Social media

This decision concerns an anti-SLAPP motion brought by the defendants, Trinitee Okoye and Olivia Singaye, seeking to stay or dismiss a defamation action by the plaintiffs, Reynolds Okoh, Axel Mensah, and 2357392 Ontario Inc. o/a The Palace Ottawa.

The court found that the impugned social media posts did not constitute expression on a matter of public interest within the meaning of section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Even if the threshold were met, the court held that the action had substantial merit and the defences of justification and fair comment were unlikely to succeed.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendant, Samantha Robinson (carrying on business as Postering Ottawa), brought an anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action brought by Diffusart International and Marc Agostini.

The court found that while Robinson’s expressions related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiffs’ claim had substantial merit and Robinson did not have valid defences.

The court concluded that the harm to the plaintiffs outweighed the public interest in protecting Robinson’s expression, and dismissed the anti-SLAPP motion without costs.

The plaintiff, Ari Lesser, brought a motion for a Norwich order compelling Change.org to produce subscriber information identifying the creator of a petition that allegedly defamed him.

The court reviewed the legal test for granting a Norwich order, including the necessity of the information, the relationship between the applicant and the third party, and the interests of justice.

The court found that all criteria were met and granted the order, allowing the plaintiff to obtain the requested information from Change.org.

This decision concerns a dispute between two couples and their closely held corporations over the ownership and operation of "Tiki" boats in Wasaga Beach, Ontario.

The court found that no binding joint venture or operator agreement was reached, and that the only enforceable contract was the sale of the boats to the plaintiffs.

The defendants' unilateral actions with Transport Canada and defamatory statements on social media led to findings of breach of fiduciary duty and defamation, resulting in damages and punitive damages awarded to the plaintiffs.

The court dismissed the defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, finding that Facebook posts made by the defendant accusing the plaintiffs of corruption and bribery were not protected as fair comment.

The posts, which followed a controversial development approval in Niagara-on-the-Lake, were found to be based on falsehoods and reckless disregard for the truth, with the defendant admitting he had “no proof” for his accusations.

The court held that the harm to the plaintiffs’ reputation and business interests outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendant’s expression, and that the posts were motivated by an ulterior motive to thwart the plaintiffs’ development project.

The City of Waterloo sought and was granted interlocutory statutory and quia timet injunctions to restrain "persons unknown" from violating the City's Nuisance Party By-law in connection with anticipated unsanctioned St. Patrick’s Day street parties.

The court found a clear breach of the by-law, significant unrecoverable public costs, and a high probability of irreparable harm.

The decision reviews the legal standards for statutory and quia timet injunctions, the public interest in enforcement, and the limited impact on Charter rights.

This decision addresses two Applications for Openness brought by the Office of the Children's Lawyer on behalf of two Metis children placed for adoption with their younger siblings.

The court considered the best interests of the children, the meaningfulness and benefit of ongoing contact with birth parents, and the importance of cultural connection under both the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) and the Federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children.

The court balanced the children's strong desire for contact and cultural connection against the risks posed by the birth parents' aggressive and disruptive behavior, particularly the father's history of threats and criminal charges.

The final openness order permits indirect contact through annual updates and messages, with strict conditions to protect the adoptive placement's stability and safety.

The court granted summary judgment in two related libel actions brought by Felicia Crichton, John-Marcel Forget, Rainbow Alliance Dryden, and Caitlin Hartlen against Brian Webster.

The plaintiffs alleged that Webster's social media posts falsely labelled them as "groomers" and pedophiles, causing reputational harm and distress.

The court found the posts were defamatory, identified the plaintiffs, and were published to third parties.

Webster's defences, including fair comment, were rejected.

The court awarded each plaintiff $75,000 in general damages and $20,000 in aggravated damages, finding Webster's conduct was malicious and constituted hate speech.

The court granted summary judgment in two related libel actions brought by Rainbow Alliance Dryden, Caitlin Hartlen, Felicia Crichton, and John-Marcel Forget against Brian Webster.

The plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Webster published defamatory posts on Facebook, falsely associating them with grooming and sexual predation of children.

The court found the posts were defamatory, identified the plaintiffs, and were published to third parties.

The court rejected Mr. Webster’s defences, including fair comment, and found he acted with malice.

General and aggravated damages were awarded to each plaintiff.

The court dismissed a defamation action brought by UM Financial Inc., Omar Kalair, and Yusuf Panchbhaya against Ronald Butler and Butler Mortgage Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that a social media post by Mr. Butler defamed them by referencing a halal mortgage organization that "ripped off its clients years ago & embezzled people’s money." The court found that UM Financial lacked standing as an undischarged bankrupt, and that the impugned words did not refer to the plaintiffs specifically.

The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to show substantial merit to their claim, failed to show the defendants had no valid defences, and failed to demonstrate that the public interest in allowing the action to proceed outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression.

The action was dismissed under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The defendant, Shakara Walker, faced charges of publishing a defamatory libel and criminal harassment following a contentious separation and dispute over shared property with the complainant.

The Crown stayed the defamatory libel charge.

The court dismissed the criminal harassment charge, finding that while the defendant's social media posts and actions were immature and petty, they did not meet the legal threshold for criminal harassment, nor did they cause the complainant to reasonably fear for his physical or psychological safety.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their defamation action under an anti-SLAPP motion, which arose from the respondent briefly sharing a Facebook post alleging theft of charitable funds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the expression related to a matter of public interest and that the appellants failed to demonstrate sufficient harm to outweigh the public interest in protecting the expression.

The court emphasized the lack of evidence of actual harm beyond a legal presumption and the brief duration of the impugned post.

Ahmad Hasan was charged with two counts of criminal harassment and three counts of breach of probation stemming from his public Facebook postings targeting a detective and a lawyer involved in his previous criminal cases, and for breaching a publication ban.

The court found that Hasan's conduct, including seeking personal information about the complainants and making derogatory remarks, constituted threatening and harassing behaviour.

The complainants' fears for their safety were deemed objectively reasonable given the context of Hasan's prior convictions and obsessive conduct.

The court found Hasan guilty on all five charges.

This is a consolidated appeal from anti-SLAPP motions dismissing defamation actions.

The actions arose from tweets and an email suggesting the appellant's medical clinic discriminated against the LGBTQ community.

The motion judge dismissed both actions, finding the communications were fair comment.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred regarding Evans-Bitten's fair comment defence, concluding there were grounds to believe malice would defeat it.

After conducting the public interest weighing, the Court found the public interest in allowing the appellant's action against Evans-Bitten to proceed outweighed the public interest in protecting her expression, given the substantial harm and low public interest in protecting gratuitous personal attacks.

However, the Court upheld the dismissal of the action against Kirkconnell and Smith, finding no grounds to believe their fair comment defence would fail due to recklessness.

The Seafarers’ International Union of Canada (SIU) commenced a defamation action against the defendant for publishing false statements on social media regarding a COVID-19 vaccination survey.

The defendant failed to deliver a statement of defence and was noted in default.

The court held an uncontested hearing for the assessment of damages, granting mandatory and permanent injunctions against the defendant.

The court awarded the SIU general damages of $50,000 and punitive damages of $25,000, along with substantial indemnity costs of $17,175, finding the defendant's conduct egregious and unapologetic.

The decision clarifies the assessment of damages for corporate plaintiffs in defamation cases, distinguishing them from individual plaintiffs regarding mental distress and the scale of damages without proven economic loss.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion seeking an order to prohibit the respondent mother from making public social media postings related to the society's involvement with her children, the children's fathers, caregivers, and society employees, and to compel the removal of existing posts.

The mother opposed the motion.

The court granted the orders, finding that the mother's postings violated subsection 87(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, by identifying children and parties to the proceedings.

The court also relied on its inherent power to control its own process to protect participants from cyberbullying and maintain the integrity of child protection proceedings.

The Applicant mother brought a motion seeking interim decision-making responsibility for the children, particularly for medical/healthcare decisions, the use of a parenting application for communication, compliance with COVID-19 public health recommendations by the Respondent father, and a prohibition on the Respondent posting children on social media in relation to the pandemic or litigation.

The court granted the Applicant final decision-making authority for medical and healthcare issues (including vaccination), ordered the use of a parenting communication application, mandated the Respondent's compliance with public health recommendations, and prohibited social media posts of the children related to COVID-19 or the family law litigation, with non-compliance leading to immediate cessation of parenting time.

The existing shared parenting schedule was maintained.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought applications to compel three physicians to cooperate with investigations into their practices, particularly concerning the issuance of COVID-19 vaccination exemptions and the dissemination of information.

The physicians refused to cooperate, asserting constitutional rights.

The court dismissed the respondents' adjournment requests and ordered them to comply with the investigations, including providing medical charts and patient information.

The court granted a publication ban on the identities of private physician sources and witnesses but denied a ban on the identities of the College's staff and the Medical Officer of Health, finding that social media comments directed at public officials, while vituperative, did not constitute actual threats of violence justifying such a ban.

The applicant (mother) brought a motion seeking orders to protect herself and her two children from the respondent (father).

The mother requested the removal of all social media posts, commentary, and videos about them, a prohibition on future postings, and a restraining order.

The father opposed the motion.

The court found the father engaged in cyberbullying and family violence through his online conduct, violating the privacy of the mother and children and contravening the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The court granted the mother's requests, ordering the father to remove existing posts, prohibiting future posts, and issuing a restraining order, citing the best interests of the children and the mother's safety concerns.

Costs were awarded to the mother.

The defendant, Jade Thelwel, pleaded guilty to two counts of breaching court orders that prohibited her from communicating or posting online about two individuals, Luke Halstead and Andrei Korottchenko.

These breaches occurred after a sustained online campaign of vilification against the victims, which continued even after police investigations found no basis for her allegations and despite prior release conditions.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with probation, while the defence requested an absolute discharge.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the serious impact on victims and the willful breach of court orders, alongside mitigating factors such as the defendant's guilty plea, lack of prior criminal record, engagement in counselling, and promising career.

The court ultimately granted a conditional discharge, imposing two years of probation with no contact orders and 50 hours of community service, balancing the principles of deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation, and finding it in the public interest given the circumstances.