Newsletters

871

Can You Slander a Candidate in an Election?

What are the limits of what can be said on social media about a candidate in an election? The question was answered in Laprise c. Simard, 2022 QCCS 1384, a recent decision by Justice Claude Bouchard of the Superior Court.

The Facts

The plaintiff is the candidate for the Conservative Party of Canada in the riding of Beauport–Côte-de-Beaupré–Île d’Orléans–Charlevoix in the last federal election of September 20, 2021.

The night before the vote, the plaintiff, who is the ex spouse of the plaintiff’s husband and who has two children with this man, puts up a post on her Facebook page in which she essentially states that the plaintiff is using the children to promote her candidacy for the election.

The defendant also publishes statements to the effect that the plaintiff has intimidated her and had been vile to her.

The defendant’s posts have been seen by hundreds of people. Some of them did not hesitate to make disparaging comments about the plaintiff, wishing her to be defeated, or describing her alleged behavior as “disgusting” [“dégueulasse”, par 22].

The plaintiff categorically denies the defendant’s allegations. Some of the posts are withdrawn the very day they appeared on Facebook. A letter of demand is sent by the plaintiff and the remaining posts are deleted by the defendant.

The Law

According to the Court, the defendant’s statements are misleading. The advertisements related to the plaintiff’s campaign accurately describe her as the “stepmother” of twins [par 23]. Furthermore, the moment selected by the defendant reveals her real intentions, which are to attack the plaintiff’s image and induce people not to support her nor to vote for her.

Thus, publishing misleading statements exceeds the limits of freedom of expression, therefore becoming defamation. The Court awards $5,000 as compensatory damages, and $1,000 as punitive damages.

Takeaway

Citizens who run for office enter what is commonly referred to as the political arena. They must accept that personal elements of their lives may be the subject of public discussions or commentary. Such are the risks of the job.

However, the political arena is not a free for all. Candidates to elections remain protected by section 4 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Civil Code of Québec, mainly articles 3 and 35. They have among other rights the right to the protection of their dignity their honor and their reputation.

The Supreme Court of Canada stated in 1704604 Ontario Ltd. c. Pointes Protection Association, 2020 SCC 22, that even while freedom of speech is important as a basis of a pluralist democracy, it does not authorize slandering someone else.

These statements are even more relevant in the context of social media.

As this decision illustrates, inappropriate behaviour can have severe consequences before the courts.

871

Articles in the same category

An Insurer Is Not Required to Uncover What the Insured Was Required to Disclose

In Kayembe-Kabeya v. Industrielle Alliance, assurance et services financiers inc., 2026 QCCS 1714, the Superior Court sets the record straight on the principle of contractual “utmost good faith”. The Facts In September 2019, Ms. Ricady Mede (hereinafter “Mede”) purchased a life insurance policy from Industrielle Alliance (hereinafter the “Insurer”). A few months later, she died of […]

When it’s too late for latent defects…

The Superior Court recently rendered a judgment in Reinert v. Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc., 2026 QCCS 2276, dealing with timeliness to give notice in cases of latent defects. The Facts In 2013, Ms. Sylvie Reinert and Mr. Denis Leclerc retained Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc. (“CMB”) for the construction of a residential building on a vacant lot in Lévis. […]

Insurance Math: One Claim, Two Fires, Three Points of Origin, Zero Recovery: When Circumstantial Evidence Speaks Louder Than a Confession

In Chatel v. Desjardins Insurance, 2026 QCCS 712, the Quebec Superior Court reaffirmed a principle of insurance law: direct evidence is not required to establish an intentional fault. Mr. Chatel claimed $532,000 under his homeowner’s insurance policy following two fires that occurred four days apart. The first caused partial damage to his residence, while the second […]

The Quarrelsome Litigant: When the Right to Sue Becomes a Scourge

Access to the courts is a fundamental right, but what happens when a person uses it not to assert legitimate rights, but to harass others or clog the system to excess? This is quarrelsomeness: the tendency to exercise one’s right to litigate in an excessive or unreasonable manner. Far from being a marginal phenomenon, it […]

Before Buying a Product, Read This: The Rules Are Changing on October 5!

On October 5, 2026, the final amendments to the Regulation amending the Regulation respecting the application of the Consumer Protection Act (the “Regulation“) are expected to come into force, completing the implementation of the new “good working order” warranty in the province of Quebec. When this warranty applies, the merchant or manufacturer will be required to repair […]

No Notice of Default, No Termination

In Pavage Wemindji Inc. v. Compagnie de Construction et de Développement crie ltée, the Quebec Superior Court emphasized that a valid notice of default (mise en demeure) is not just a formality—it’s a precondition to exercising remedies like contract termination in many cases under Quebec civil law. The Decision The plaintiff, Pavage Wemindji Inc. (“Wemindji”), […]