Don't @ Me ' Twitter Callout Causes Contempt

• Law Firm: Rogers Partners LLP
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment, Libel & Defamation, Social Media
• Author: Ms Annie Levanaj
• Published date: 01 May 2023

The Post v. Hillier trilogy of cases is important in demonstrating the serious consequences individuals can face for failure to comply with court orders in civil actions.

Part 1: Post v. Hillier, 2022 ONSC 3793

The initial decision dealt with a defamation action. The plaintiff, Ms. Post, sought damages, an injunction and costs for false and defamatory tweets posted about her by the defendant Ms. Hillier, in November 2021. The plaintiff moved for default judgement as the defendant had not defended the lawsuit and as such, the defendant was noted in default. Justice Gomery highlighted that this meant that the defendant was deemed to admit the truth of all allegations of fact made in the Statement of Claim.

Background Facts

The plaintiff had a PhD in Literature and Cultural Studies and taught English courses at Carleton University for over 18 years. The defendant was the plaintiff's former student at Carleton, had run for public office twice and her father was a politician. The parties met in 2008 when the defendant took two undergraduate English classes, taught by the plaintiff. The two became friends and the defendant was even in the plaintiff's wedding party. However, the friendship deteriorated in 2020 over political differences, with both parties active on Twitter.

The Twitter Posts

The conflict began when Ms. Post retweeted a thread that criticized anti-vaccine protests at hospitals and other tactics endorsed by the defendant and her father. The defendant responded by tweeting comments insinuating that Ms. Post had engaged in a romantic relationship with a student and referred to the plaintiff as a "violent white nationalist". The defendant's tweets were broadcast to approximately 9,300 followers.

The plaintiff reported the tweets, and the defendant's account was suspended for violating Twitter's rules. A week later, the defendant made a new account and continued posting. From November 18 - 21, 2021 the defendant posted numerous tweets including ones describing the plaintiff as a sexual predator who drugged her students, a gas-lighter, and an abuser. The defendant's account had grown to 50,000 followers. The defendant even tweeted threatening to contact Carleton University with these allegations and tagged Carleton's account on at least one occasion.

Litigation

The plaintiff sent the defendant notice of libel on December 7, 2021. The defendant received the notice by email, but announced on Twitter that she had no intention of removing her tweets. Thus, Ms. Post served the defendant personally with her Statement of Claim on January 9, 2022. The defendant never responded with a statement of defence, but posted about the lawsuit on Twitter and continued mocking the plaintiff.

The Court's Defamation Analysis

The tort of defamation is one of strict liability and requires that:

1. The words were defamatory in that they would tend to lower the reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of a reasonable person;
2. The words in fact referred to the plaintiff; and
3. The words were published, meaning communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff. ¹

In this case, Justice Gomery found that all elements of the test were satisfied. The defendant's words were defamatory as the accusation that the plaintiff was a sexual predator who drugged her students...