THUNDER BAY - A Thunder Bay judge has ruled a defamation lawsuit against an administrator of a local Facebook page can move forward after denying a motion that anti-drag comments were public interest speech.
Rainbow Alliance Dryden and an individual drag performer in the community filed a civil case against Brian Webster, administrator of the Facebook page Real Thunder Bay Courthouse Inside Edition in December 2022.
The case alleges a post made by Webster on the Facebook page in September 2022 was defamatory. The post included screen shots of a CBC article about a scheduled drag show in Dryden that was disrupted by prank calls.
The original statement of claim argues that the post, which includes the term ‘groomer’ when referring to drag performers, was defamatory because of its false insinuations related to predatory behaviour toward children by the drag community and has resulted in damage to personal, professional, and organizational reputations.
The post generated numerous comments that also included anti-2SLGBTQI sentiments and accusations.
The complainants are each seeking $75,000 in general damages and $20,000 punitive damages, as well as special damages in an amount to be determined prior to trial.
Webster filed a motion calling for the case to be dismissed based on province’s anti-SLAPP law, with SLAPP referring to ‘strategic litigation against public participation.’
The law was designed to strike a balance between free expression and reputational harm and prevent litigation from being used as a means of limiting expression on matters of public interest.
A judge may dismiss a defamation proceeding under the anti-SLAPP law in the early stages if they are satisfied that the case arises from expressions made by the defendant relating to matters of public interest.
In a ruling issued on Dec. 14, 2023, Justice Tracey Nieckarz dismissed Webster’s motion, ruling that the defamation action can proceed.
Nieckarz said in her ruling that anti-SLAPP is not a ‘carte blanche’ to defame someone and freedom of expression does not: “confer a licence to ruin reputations or make unjustified assaults on a person’s reputation.”
Webster argued the Facebook comment was expressing his opinion about the CBC article, the issues raised by it, and their approach to the story.
The complainants argued that the comment constituted hate speech and that Webster attempted to embed that speech into a legitimate public interest issue.
Nieckarz said saying something in the context of public interest does not make the expression a matter of public interest.
“In this case, the proceeding does not arise from any comments made by Webster about the CBC or about the propriety of the CBC journalist reporting on drag story time events,” she said in her ruling, adding that the comment perpetuates: “hurtful myths and stereotypes about vulnerable members in our society.”
“Webster’s argument that he was accusing the CBC of grooming has no merit based on a plain reading of the post. I agree with the Plaintiffs that the post does not represent speech that [Anti-SLAPP] is intended to protect.”
The motion was dismissed based on the first stage of the anti-SLAPP test.
But Nieckarz also outlined that it would have failed at later stages of the test, such as the original claim of the plaintiffs having merit, that a defense of ‘fair comment’ does not apply to ‘unfounded accusations’ against 2SLGBTQI individuals or groups, and that there is no public interest in protecting harmful tropes or speech.
“Along with rights come responsibilities, especially when one is recognized by a number of individuals or ‘followers’ as a local media source,” Nieckarz said.
“Not exposing another individual to hatred, contempt or ridicule by making allegations that have no basis in fact, and are founded solely on the fact that the individual is a member of a vulnerable, Charter-protected group, is such a responsibility. I simply cannot find any public interest in protecting a harmful trope that associates 2SLGBTQI people with sexual predation against children.”
Webster is facing a separate defamation lawsuit filed by two Thunder Bay drag performers over posts he made to the same Facebook page.
The statement of claim alleges the post: “constitutes a vicious, obscene, and hateful libel of them based in harmful homophobic and transphobic myths and conspiracy theories.”
The two plaintiffs are each seeking $75,000 in general damages and $20,000 in punitive damages.
