In a recent decision, Boucal v. Rancourt-Maltais, the Superior Court reviewed the principles applicable to defamation cases.
Facts
The Defendant is a member of a private Facebook group called “Féministes Bas-St-Laurent”. In this group, Ms. Khadidiatou Yewwi allegedly posted testimony about the Plaintiff.
Stating that she was troubled by the testimony and had herself heard of certain behaviours, actions, or gestures by the Plaintiff toward other women, the Defendant published a photograph of the Plaintiff and a written statement on her publicly accessible Facebook page—created under a pseudonym—describing the Plaintiff as a sexual abuser.
The evidence presented at trial showed that the text published by the Defendant recounted the testimony of an individual she does not know and whose credibility she cannot verify. Additionally, the evidence established that the Defendant was never the victim of the conduct alleged against the Plaintiff, whom she does not know personally.
Plaintiff alleges that he and his family were forced to move because of the Defendant’s publication on social media. He also alleged that he had received a probation notice from his employer, and that he had been forced to temporarily suspend his involvement in an organization he had created to help the cause of immigrants.
The Defendant denied having any intention of harming the Plaintiff, having acted instead for purposes of protection and information. The Defendant also alleges that the communication concerns a matter of public interest, given the Plaintiff’s notoriety. Finally, the Defendant alleges that there is no causal link between the alleged damages and the Defendant’s conduct, since Ms. Yewwi’s testimony was already accessible and had been seen by many people.
The Court therefore had to determine whether the Defendant’s conduct was wrongful. In addition, given that the Defendant had filed for bankruptcy, the Court also had to decide whether any damages awarded constitute a debt that would be discharged as a result of the bankruptcy.
Decision
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Prud’homme v. Prud’homme, 2002 SCC 85, where it was reaffirmed that the burden lies with the plaintiff to persuade the judge that the statements in question are defamatory. To make this determination, the Court must consider whether a reasonable person would conclude that the impugned statements—taken as a whole—have harmed the plaintiff’s reputation, either by diminishing the esteem or respect in which the plaintiff is held, or by provoking negative or unpleasant feelings toward them.” Having found that this was the case, the Court then proceeded to the second step, which was to assess whether the Defendant could be held liable under one of the three established situations that give rise to liability. After examining each of these scenarios, the Court concluded that the Defendant fell within the third category: that of a defamatory person who, without just cause, makes unfavorable yet truthful statements about a third party. The Court found that the Defendant acted with malicious intent, seeking to harm the Plaintiff for her own personal gain.
In assessing damages, the Court awarded the Plaintiff $10,000 in non-pecuniary damages, along with $7,969.58 to cover the cost of medication, psychological treatment, and moving expenses. Additionally, the Court granted $2,500 in compensation for the unlawful and intentional harm caused to the Plaintiff’s reputation, pursuant to section 49 of the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
As for the impact of the Defendant’s bankruptcy, the Court noted that discharge of a bankrupt’s debts is the rule, and that non-discharge is the exception. Moreover, these exceptions must be interpreted restrictively, and the courts have no discretion as to their application. In reviewing each of the exceptions found in section 178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Court concluded that the moral and punitive damages awarded were not among the exceptions that would result in the Defendant not being discharged from these debts. However, the Court noted that the legal fees constituted a debt as of the date of the judgment, so that they would not be covered by the Defendant’s bankruptcy.
Takeaway
While sharing someone else’s post on social media may be quick and easy, it is wise to think twice before publicly reposting the testimony of a person you do not know.
