Favorable judgment obtained by BCA in defamation case

During the 2017 municipal elections, the plaintiff ran for mayor of the Municipality of Austin. The defendants were residents of the Municipality of Austin, but also administrators of two local associations. One association, APDMO, was responsible for managing a private residential area, while the other association, APELO, was responsible for protecting a lake in the area. 

  A few days before the vote, the outgoing mayor decided to write and send an email containing comments and allegations about her political opponent in that election campaign, the plaintiff. She sent the email to fifteen people, namely the administrators of about ten volunteer associations in the municipality, including the defendants. She asked these association leaders to forward her email to their members. The leaders of the APDMO decided to share the outgoing mayor’s email with their 84 members, while the leaders of the APELO shared it with four of their volunteers. 

 After a 15-day trial and several months of deliberation, the Superior Court upheld the legal position put forward by BCA and ruled in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff’s claim of approximately $1.4 million. 

  More specifically, the Court concluded that although some of the outgoing mayor’s comments may have exceeded the limits of freedom of expression and were arguably exaggerated or even defamatory, the defendants themselves were not the authors of those comments and therefore had not committed any wrongdoing by forwarding the email to a very limited group of people. In finding that the defendants were not at fault, the Court held that they were not subject to the same standard of verification applicable to journalistic investigations. Moreover, even if the comments were defamatory, it had to be established that the defendants were at fault and/or that a reasonable person, in the same circumstances, would not have acted in the same manner. The Court also considered the context of a highly acrimonious election campaign. It further noted that several of the facts alleged in the mayor’s email, although exaggerated, referred to matters known to the APDMO defendants who had shared the message with their 84 members. The Court ultimately concluded that the decision to circulate the email did not amount to misconduct, given the mayor’s credibility with the defendants, their roles within the associations, the members’ legitimate interest in the information shared by the outgoing mayor, and her express request that the email be distributed. 

  Finally, despite finding that the defendants were not at fault, the Court observed that the damage claimed was either unfounded or grossly exaggerated. The Court noted that, by the plaintiff’s own admission, the allegedly defamatory email had little to no impact, and the evidence demonstrated that it had not resurfaced in any manner that could harm or even embarrass the plaintiff. Moreover, the Court found that, despite his status as a public figure, the plaintiff had in some respects caused or aggravated his own damages, having made himself “unemployable” and thereby suffered a loss of income. In conclusion, the Court stated that, given the evidence presented and the applicable case of law, the monetary claim appeared to be greatly exaggerated, and the punitive damages sought were vastly exaggerated. 

  The plaintiff recently filed a notice of appeal…to be continued!! 

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