Northern Ont. man awarded $75K in defamation suit after ex-spouse attacks him on social media

A Batchewana First Nation man has won a defamation case related to false accusations made in Facebook posts made by a former partner. (File)

A northern Ontario woman who made several untrue statements about her former spouse on social media has lost a defamation suit in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The former couple, who come from Batchewana First Nation, had a falling out after they opened a smoke shop in 2018.

He sued her for defamation when she attacked him on the company’s Facebook page, accusing him of being a violent drug addict who abandoned his family, among other things. She also accused him of sexual abuse of their daughter, a claim later proven false.

According to the court decision, dated July 24, the man handled the business side of things at the smoke shack and the woman handled social media and other technological aspects because she “was more computer savvy.”

“The defendant was also actively involved in the social media accounts for the smoke shack and created and maintained the Facebook account for the business,” the decision said.

“It was the evidence of the plaintiff that the defendant told him that there was over 2,000 followers on the Facebook account of the smoke shack and the plaintiff also observed this personally when he looked on Facebook.”

While the business became profitable after six months, the relationship between the couple turned sour. The man said she became obsessed with money and became “arrogant and bossy.”

Matters came to a head in September 2020 during a trip to Thunder Bay. The man said she kicked him out of their hotel room and he returned to Sault Ste. Marie. They have been apart ever since.

Later in September 2020, the woman began using the smoke shop Facebook page to attack her former partner.

“In the Sept. 30, 2020, post, the defendant depicts the plaintiff as someone who is abusive, has an addiction problem, abandoned his family emotionally and financially,” the court decision said.

“As is stated in the Facebook post, (the plaintiff) ‘has closed our accounts ... left us homeless without money and emotionally, mentally, spiritually and financially abused.’ The defendant goes on to state, when describing the plaintiff, that his addiction is first and foremost his main concern and hiding it and saving face.’”

The post also encouraged people not to “feed this business” because people should “know that you are now supporting a business that feeds his drug habit and our local community drug dealers.”

Another post in October included a picture of the couple’s young daughter, and accused her former partner of catering to drug dealers.

In addition to the social media posts, when the woman accused the man of sexually abusing their daughter, he lost access to her while authorities investigated.

FACEBOOK POSTS HURT BUSINESS

He was cleared in the investigation and “he now has unsupervised access to his daughter,” the decision said.

After the social media posts, the smoke shack saw a steady decline in revenue. After exceeding $230,000 in sales in July and August 2020, sales dropped to $219,000 in September, $194,436 in October and “a steady decline from November 2020 to and including March 2021.”

Testifying in the man’s defence were his daughter, who said she never saw alcohol or drugs in her father’s home. She said he was a supportive father who took her camping and ice fishing.

She also “testified that she had difficulty in her own marriage and that in those difficult times her father supported her financially as a single mother and was always there for her,” the court decision said.

“I don’t think I’d be here without him,” she testified, adding that “her father’s reputation in the community was a good one.”

The man’s ex-wife gave similar testimony, adding that “people in the community never really believed the Facebook posts and that people who knew the plaintiff his whole life would not have believed the Facebook posts of the defendant.”

In the decision, the judge ruled that the case for defamation had been proven. Social media posts, in particular, allow for defamatory statements to be heard by a large audience.

“The defendant did not defend this action. She has made no retraction or apology,” the decision said.

“This portrayal of the plaintiff as a neglectful father, in the face of the evidence as to what type of father the plaintiff actually is, undoubtedly increased the plaintiff’s anxiety and mental distress resulting from the Facebook posts and the plaintiff’s overall suffering.”

The judge awarded the plaintiff $50,000 in general damages, $25,000 in punitive damages, in addition to more than $12,000 court costs and disbursements.