In today’s digital age, where information spreads like wildfire, safeguarding one’s reputation has never been more important. Individuals now have the power to make defamatory statements about someone by simply typing a few words and hitting “send” or “post.” As a result, defamation claims are a common cause of action, as false statements about a person or entity can result in enduring consequences, affecting careers, relationships, and personal well-being.  For those facing defamatory statements, the legal recourse available can provide a means to defend your reputation while you seek re ..read more

Parties to litigation have ongoing disclosure obligations, including a plaintiff’s responsibility to disclose a settlement agreement to other non-settling defendants immediately. This is particularly important as a settlement agreement can drastically change litigation dynamics, particularly concerning the relationship between the plaintiff and the settling defendant and the conduct of the settling defendant throughout the remainder of the proceedings. The recent case of Crestwood Preparatory College Inc. v. Smith, from the Ontario Court of Appeal, highlights the importance of the disclosure o ..read more

When Does a Lawsuit Become a Tool for Limiting Public Debate? Section 137.1  of the Courts of Justice Act (CJA) grants the ability to bring a motion for the dismissal of any proceeding if that proceeding is aimed at limiting public debate.  This step can be taken at any time after a proceeding is commenced and even prior to filing a statement of defence. The right to do so is designed to prevent what is known as a SLAPP action –  a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. In order to be successful with a motion under this section, the defendant must first demonstrate ..read more

We have previously written about defamation cases involving individuals who had posted their opinions of various businesses and were subsequently sued for defamation, only to have the defendant seek a dismissal on the basis of issues pertaining to the public interest.  In  Zoutman v. Graham, for example, the owner of a medical clinic brought a claim against a person who had posted several negative comments to the doctor’s page on a popular medical practitioner rating site, having never been a patient. His rating of the doctor was based on the doctor’s actions as an expert witness in ..read more

In September of last year, we wrote about a situation that had been making headlines, in which the owner of a medical diagnostic clinic in Guelph had filed a $6 million defamation claim against a local married couple, SEB and KEB. The claim arose out of the fact that SEB had shared tweets made by the plaintiff, along with her own commentary urging members of the LGBTQIA+ community to avoid the plaintiff’s business. The original tweets, as written by the plaintiff and shared from his business’s Twitter account, contained offensive terms for various members of the LGBTQIA+ community and opinions ..read more

As a professional, being the subject of an investigation or disciplinary hearing is not something anyone wants to endure. The potential consequences of a finding of negligence, professional misconduct, or other wrongs can be significant and can include fines, practice limitations or restrictions, suspension or revocation of professional licenses, and even criminal charges. Findings of professional liability or misconduct can also negatively affect a person’s reputation, their ability to continue working in their field, and their chance to find work outside of their field. When these hearings a ..read more

Earlier this year, we wrote about a pending case in Guelph, Ontario, in which a medical imaging clinic brought a $6 million claim for defamation against a couple stemming from negative social media posts. In that case, which has yet to be heard, one-half of the defendant couple had posted online about allegedly homophobic comments made by the clinic’s president, via the clinic’s official Twitter account. Essentially, the defendant retweeted posts shared by the clinic president, along with her own commentary indicating that she and her spouse would not be patronizing that particular clinic due ..read more

People are entitled to express their opinions online, however, when those posts are untrue and have the potential to negatively impact another person or business, the poster may end up being found liable for defamation. We previously wrote about an Ontario court decision in which a man was ordered to pay $50,000 to a doctor for negative online comments and reviews he posted. The doctor had acted as an expert witness in a medical malpractice trial involving a patient who had died. The doctor acted as an expert for the defendant physician, and the deceased man’s brother took issue with his testi ..read more

The internet has opened up new avenues for communication over the past twenty-five years, allowing for unfettered access to information and ease of communication. However, it has also created new means for negative interactions, including harassment, which, given the platform, can make it relentless and difficult to escape. While Ontario law has long addressed various forms of harassment through civil torts such as defamation, and intentional infliction of mental suffering, it had yet to recognize the specifics of online harassment through the creation of a formal cause of action. Courts have ..read more

Professionals work hard to build their reputations and often rely in large part on word of mouth to grow their clientele. Understandably, many have concerns about negative or dishonest reviews made about them online. These ratings and reviews are often anonymous and take just a few moments to create, yet they can have a lasting negative impact on a person’s business. The recent decision of Zoutman v. Graham illustrates the risk that online comments pose, in a case where a medical doctor sued for defamation after discovering a series of untruthful reviews. Family of Deceased Patient Target Doct ..read more