Can I sue someone for posting about me on social media?
When someone posts negative or disparaging comments about you on social media, it can result in serious consequences. Negative posts about you can affect your employment or your education. They can even expose you to harassment or violence.
Canada’s courts have now allowed many lawsuits in defamation related to posts made on social media or other websites. For example, in the recent case of Lavallee et al. v. Isak, 2021 ONSC 6661, the Ontario Superior Court awarded two young women, Justine and Shania Lavallee, $50,000.00 each after they were defamed on social media. Shania took a 15-second video of Justine and her boyfriend wrestling and posted the Video to Snapchat. One of her followers took a screenshot of one scene in the Video and shared it with their own followers. The screenshot depicted Justine face down on the ground with her boyfriend on top of her. The defendant, Solit Isak, shared the screenshot with her own followers, denouncing it is racist and accused Justine and Shania of mocking George Floyd’s death. After the defendant’s posts went viral, Justine was fired from her job with the Canada Border Services Agency. Shania was fired from her waitressing job at Boston Pizza. Shania and Justine’s home was vandalized, their neighbour’s car damaged, and their friends and family were subjected to death threats and harassing phone calls and social media messages.
How do you know if a social media post about you is “defamatory”? A plaintiff in a defamation action must prove three things to obtain a judgment and an award of damages: (1) that the words would tend to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person; (2) that the words referred to the plaintiff; and (3) that the words were communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff.
Those who are sued in defamation can defend against the lawsuit using any of the recognized defences; namely: (a) “truth or justification”, where the defendant proves that the statement was factually accurate and substantially true; (b) “absolute privilege”, where statements in Parliament, in court, or in a complaint to a regulatory body are cloaked with immunity; (c) “statutory privilege”, where statutes protect broadcasts or publication of fair and accurate reports of certain public meetings and proceedings, unless the publication is made with malice; (d) “qualified privilege”, where the defendant has a duty or legitimate interest in communicating to an audience that has a legitimate interest in receiving the information and the statement is made without malice; (e) “fair comment”, where statements on a matter of public interest recognizable as comments or opinions are made without malice; (f) “public interest responsible communication”, which protects publishers if they have acted responsibly by taking reasonable steps to ascertain the reliability of the information and if the statement relates to a matter of public interest and was communicated without malice; (g) “consent”, where the plaintiff agreed to the publication; (h) limitation periods, statutory notice requirements, and preconditions to suing or statutory provisions that limit the plaintiff’s damages; and (i) “innocent dissemination”, which relieves booksellers, libraries, news vendors and Internet service providers of liability for dissemination of libelous content of which they were unaware.
If someone has made negative posts about you on social media, contact Moss Hachey Law’s personal injury lawyers for a free consultation.
Please be aware that there are exceptions to the rules summarized above. This blog entry contains information of a general nature only and should not be relied on for legal advice. The information is current only to the date of publication and may be subject to change.
