Keyboard Warriors Be Aware:

A Cautionary Tale on Defamation

By Ashley Hizo

How much power does the ‘click of a button’ hold?

It is easy to fall victim to the assumption that one is insulated from personal liability when posting an angry review on the internet, based on the perceived physical separation with the intend recipient of an online ‘attack’. This line of reasoning however, is a logical fallacy as a recent Ontario Superior Court case makes clear.

In the case of D’Alessio v. Chowdhury, 2023 ONSC 6075, the Court recently awarded a Toronto based law firm with $20,000 in damages and $9,500 in legal costs for a successful defamation claim, after an aggrieved former client posted an angry online Google Review.

Defamation is the act of communicating to a third-party a false statement about a person that results in damage to that person’s reputation. Defamation can be found through either Libel or Slander. Libel is defamation in written words, whilst slander is defamation in spoken words.

In 2016, D’Alessio Romero Law (the “law firm”) represented Chowdhury, the defendant in a personal injury accident. For reasons unclear, there was eventually a fundamental breakdown of the solicitor-client relationship. Following the breakdown, Chowdhury posted a Google Review attacking the reputation of several lawyers employed at the firm by calling them “incompetent” “a paralegal posing as a lawyer” “highly negligent” and “professional and disorganized” among other scathing insults.

When Chowdhury refused to take down her Google Review, the law firm commenced a defamation action.

Justice Sutherland of the Ontario Superior Court ultimately found that the law firm had successfully established the relevant three-part test for defamation, which requires a plaintiff to prove the following:

1. The words must refer to the plaintiff;
2. The impugned words were published; and
3. The impugned words were defamatory in the sense that they would tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person.

In finding that the impugned words were defamatory, Justice Sutherland found that the words were used to impugn the reputation of the plaintiffs as competent, trustworthy lawyers that know how to practice law in the realm of personal injury. Further, the impugned words in the eyes of a reasonable person would conclude that the plaintiffs were lawyers that one should not use and in so doing and that the impugned words lowered the professional reputation of the plaintiffs.

There are several potential defenses to a defamation claim including justification, fair comment, qualified privilege, absolute privilege, and responsible communication. However, Chowdhury did not plead or advance any defense. As a result, the law firm was successful in their defamation claim.

As stated by Justice Sutherland, “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”

This case serves as a cautionary tale that online ‘attacks’ are not insulated from a claim of defamation. It is important to take care and be diligent when posting a comment on the internet as the potential consequences can be severe and costly.

For any questions related to this article or legal advice concerning a claim of or defense to a defamation claim, please contact one of our experienced litigation lawyers at SorbaraLAW.