Favorable Defamation Judgment Obtained by BCA before the Québec Court of Appeal

A brief reminder of the facts is in order. During the 2017 municipal elections, the plaintiff/appellant ran as a candidate for the position of mayor of the Municipality of Austin. The defendants/respondents were residents of the Municipality of Austin and also served as directors of two local associations. One association, APDMO, was responsible for the management of a private residential development, while the other, APELO, was mandated to protect a private lake in the area.

In the context of the 2017 election campaign, a few days before the vote, the outgoing mayor decided to write and send an email containing statements and allegations concerning her political opponent in the election campaign, namely the plaintiff/appellant. She sent the email to fifteen individuals, being the directors of approximately ten volunteer associations in the municipality, including the defendants. She asked these association leaders to forward her email to their members. The directors of APDMO decided to share the outgoing mayor’s email with their 84 members, while the directors of APELO shared it with four of their volunteers.

Following a 15-day trial and several months of deliberation, the Superior Court accepted the legal position advanced by BCA and rendered a decision in favour of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff’s claim of approximately $1.4 million. The Superior Court concluded that the defendants represented by BCA had not committed any fault by forwarding the email to a very limited group of individuals. In finding an absence of fault, the Court held, that the defendants were not subject to the same verification standards applicable to journalistic investigations and that, even if the statements were defamatory, it was necessary to demonstrate a fault on the part of the defendants and/or that a reasonable person would not have acted in the same manner in similar circumstances. The Court also took into account the highly acrimonious context of the election campaign.

In addition, the Court found that several allegations contained in the mayor’s email, although exaggerated, referred to facts that were known to the APDMO defendants who had shared the email solely with their 84 members, and that there was a public interest justifying the sharing of the email. The Court concluded that the decision to share the email did not constitute a fault given the credibility of the mayor in the eyes of the defendants, their roles within their respective associations, the interest of association members in receiving the information shared by the outgoing mayor, and her express request that the email be circulated. The decision was rendered on September 10, 2025.

Here is a link to the full decision: Morin v. Latrémouille, 2025 QCCS 3305 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/kff5k

Following the filing of a notice of appeal by the plaintiff/appellant, BCA filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on behalf of the defendants/respondents. This motion was unanimously granted by a panel of three judges of the Court of Appeal in a decision rendered on December 15, 2025. The Court concluded that the appeal raised no error of law nor any palpable and overriding error in the findings of the trial judgment, characterizing the appeal as an attempt to relitigate the case and concluding that it had no reasonable chance of success.

By this decision, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs, thereby bringing the litigation before the Québec courts to a definitive end after nearly eight years of judicial proceedings. This decision also represents significant relief for the defendants/respondents, as it confirms that their actions were not wrongful and that they are free from any reproach.

Here is a link to the full decision: Morin v. Latrémouille, 2025 QCCA 1635 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/kh3wk