A recent case from the Nova Scotia Supreme Court serves as a crucial reminder that, whether confronting online harassment or advocating for change, understanding defamation law, its elements, defences, and potential damages, remains essential in our online world.
Defamation occurs when information about an individual is shared and damages their reputation. In Terris v Meisner the Court assessed the Plaintiff Terris’s nine defamation claims and ultimately awarded her $60,000 in damages.
This decision provides hope for Nova Scotians who have their professional or personal reputations tarnished online, while providing insights into defamation law that can help others avoid legal pitfalls when posting on social media.
In 2016 Terris worked as a Registered Nurse at a group home while Defendant Meisner’s son (“MM”), an adult with an intellectual disability, resided there. In September 2016 there was an incident involving MM, Terris, and another staff member.
After receiving news of the incident and an investigator’s report, Meisner went to Facebook and the media regarding concerns she had about the care MM received at the group home, singling out Terris. Meisner's statements portrayed Terris as an abuser, drew comparisons between Terris's alleged conduct and pedophilia, and accused Terris of putting a pillowcase over MM's head and making discriminatory comments in MM’s presence.
Following Meisner’s media and social media campaign against her, Terris filed nine defamation claims. With this context in mind, let's examine how the judge analyzed Terris's defamation claims.
In her decision, the judge laid out the defamation elements a plaintiff (Terris) must establish to hold a defendant (Meisner) liable. First the complainant must prove the defendant published the information in person, in writing, through the traditional media, or on social media. Second, the complainant must establish that an “ordinary sensible person” familiar with her would have recognized the complainant was being referred to in the information. Finally, the complainant is required to prove her reputation was lowered through the spread of information.
By presenting Meisner’s Facebook posts to the court, Terris established Meisner shared information that identified Terris and lowered her reputation.
While there are circumstances where it is important to share negative information about an individual, defendants facing an established defamation claim can still defend themselves. Therefore, once the judge determined Terris had established her defamation claim, she considered whether Meisner ought to be held liable.
Defendants can avoid defamation liability through the defence of justification, if they can establish the information was true; or, the defence of fair comment, if they can establish the information was opinion rather than fact. However, Meisner was unable to establish the information she shared was either true or a fair comment.
As Terris was able to prove the three elements of defamation and Meisner failed in her defences, Meisner was held liable and was ordered to pay Terris $60,000 for the defamation suffered.
If you discover damaging posts about yourself online, ask these questions:
- Is the post presenting false facts as true?
- Is the post singling me out specifically?
- Would a reasonable person think less of me after reading the post?
If the answer is yes to all three questions, and you can prove the statements are false, you may have grounds for a defamation claim.
Conversely, before posting about others online, protect yourself by asking:
- Am I stating something as fact that I cannot prove is true?
- Am I identifying a specific person or organization?
- Could this post damage an individual’s reputation?
If you're making factual claims that could harm someone's reputation, ensure you have solid proof to back them up in court. Otherwise, that post could cost you dearly.
This article is for information only and is not intended to be legal advice. If you have any questions or would like further information, you should consult a lawyer.
