In this recently released decision, the court awarded a law firm damages in the sum of $30,000.00 against a single mother who defamed the law firm on social media after she had a falling out with the firm, and moved to another law firm.
Granted, the defendant mother was self-represented and perhaps didn’t launch a very robust defence, but robust defences cost money, and this in itself should be a cautionary tale to be careful with the mouth and pen because it could be costly (win, lose or draw).
The best advice? If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.
In this instance, the defendant did not head those words of advice: instead posting words and sentiments to the effect that her former law firm, lawyers, and staff were “highly incompetent”, “untrustworthy”, “highly unprofessional”, “shady”, “pathetic”, “a joke” etc.
The court had no difficulty finding that the words used impugned the reputation of the lawyers and the law firm. The court also recognized that “the internet has a distinctive capacity to cause instant and irreparable damage to reputation.”
Although the defendant pleaded for leniency because she was an unemployed single mother on assistance, the court ruled that:
“… the defendant’s financial situation does not shield her from an appropriate damages award given her conduct and defamation. She was presented with the opportunity to apologize and take down the review, but she refused to do so. She apologized after the action was commenced. A clear message must be made that such form of comments on an internet platform do not insulate someone from legal repercussions, such as an award of damages. Online comments are easy to do and seem distant and not accountable. But they are not. The defendant is responsible for her conduct and the quantum of damages should not be reduced simply because she is financially disadvantaged. The defendant should have thought about her state before typing the content and sending the Google Review that she did.
The statements in the Google Review were serious. The intent appears to me to diminish the plaintiffs’ reputation as a competent and effective personal injury lawyer. Though the defendant did eventually take down the review, it was after three months and after she was sued.” (Emphasis Added)
D’Alessio v. Chowdhury, 2023 ONSC 6075
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc6075/2023onsc6075.html