Case Summary and Outcome

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted summary judgment against a social media commentator for defaming the 2SLGBTQIA+ community and drag performers, finding his posts constituted serious, defamatory accusations of paedophilia. The case involved Facebook posts that used the term “groomer” in connection with all-ages drag events. The Court held that these statements were defamatory and, as they would be understood by a reasonable person to be false allegations of criminal sexual conduct, thereby severely damaging the plaintiffs’ reputations and fostering disinformation and hate against a vulnerable community. It systematically rejected the defendant’s “fair comment” defence, ruling that his rhetoric was not a matter of public interest but constituted hate speech, was not based on fact, and was published with actual malice. The Court awarded substantial general and aggravated damages to compensate the plaintiffs and to denounce the defendant’s malicious and high-handed conduct.

---

Facts

The instant decision arises from two related libel cases, which were heard together by the Court. The first incident, the Kenora Action, took place in September 2022, when the plaintiff, Rainbow Alliance Dryden (RAD), a not-for-profit organisation supporting the 2SLGBTQIA+ community in the Dryden area, organised a weekend of drag events. These included a ticketed drag show for adults, a ticketed all-ages drag brunch, and a free all-ages drag story-time at the Dryden Public Library.

Caitlin Hartlen – another plaintiff, a Dryden resident and co-chair of RAD – was scheduled to perform at the adult drag show. A few days before the scheduled events, Hartlen appeared on CBC Radio’s “Superior Morning” programme to discuss the upcoming drag weekend.

Shortly afterwards, an individual filed a complaint with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), alleging that the library’s drag story-time was an attempt to “groom” children. The OPP investigated but found the complaint to be unfounded.

The CBC journalist Jon Thompson reported on the incident on 16 September 2022, in an article titled “Dryden, Ont. was all set to host a weekend drag event. Then police responded to an unfounded prank call.”

The next day, on 17 September 2022, Hartlen discovered a Facebook page called “Real Thunder Bay Courthouse – Inside Edition” (the Courthouse Page), run by the defendant Brian Webster. He posted screenshots of Thompson’s article, which included a photo of Hartlen alongside other drag performers from a 2019 Fort Frances drag event. The photo also showed a child in costume being held by a parent.

The images were followed by text that stated:

“TAXPAYER FUNDED CBC REPORTER JON THOMPSON HAS AN AGENDA TO PROMOTE

ASK YOURSELF WHY THESE PEOPLE NEED TO PERFORM FOR CHILDREN?

GROOMERS. That’s the agenda. Just look at the face of the one child in the photo. Tells you all you need to know.

#DefundCBC.” [para 46]

Following the initial post, Webster edited the post to add one sentence – “Your tax dollars pay Jon Thompson to promote this stuff.” [para 47]

The post generated comments from readers referring to the plaintiffs as “The Guardians of the Pedophile!” and asking, “Can we buy tags to hunt these animals??” [para . 84] Webster endorsed these comments with “likes” and laughing emojis.

The second incident, the Thunder Bay Action, occurred in December 2022, when the plaintiffs, Felicia Crichton and John-Marcel Forget, promoted an event on Facebook called “Story Time with TBay Drag Queens,” scheduled for 10 December 2022, at a Thunder Bay Public Library branch. Their post included event details, headshots of themselves in drag, and their drag stage names. The event information also appeared on the library’s website.

On the day of the event, 10 December 2022, Webster published Crichton and Forget’s promotional image on the Courthouse Page and posted:

“CITY OF THUNDER BAY PROMOTING DEVIANT BEHAVIOUR TO CHILDREN

Thunder Bay City Council is so far in left field that they are promoting Drag Queen Story Time to young children in our city.

Apparently, our City Council is completely unaware of local drag queens who have been criminally charged with child pornography.

Do your children a favour and have them avoid the library in Westfort today. Don’t ask yourself why drag queens need an audience of children.

The answer might involve the word “GROOMING”

Local taxpayer subsidized news like TBLAZYWATCH & CBC continue to hide child porn and pedophile arrests from the public. In fact, a senior TBLAZYWATCH employee was just sentenced to 20 months in jail for making child pornography and uploading it through the TBLAZYWATCH internet. They refused to tell the public about it. Ask yourself why they are trying to hide this.” [para. 55]

The post included links to articles about unrelated individuals convicted of child pornography offences. Reader comments included statements that the event was a “Pedophile movement” and that participants were “clearly psychotic.” Webster was served with a libel notice for the Kenora Action on 27 October 2022, before publishing the Thunder Bay post.

The plaintiffs filed two separate libel actions against Webster. Webster brought a motion under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) legislation, which was dismissed by the Court in 2023. The plaintiffs then brought motions for summary judgment, seeking a final determination without a full trial.

---

Decision Overview

Justice H.M. Pierce delivered the judgment for the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The central issue before the Court was whether the defendant’s social media posts, which used the terms “groomer” and “grooming” in connection with the plaintiffs’ all-ages drag events, constituted defamation and whether summary judgment was an appropriate mechanism for resolution.

The plaintiffs argued that the words “groomer” and “grooming” were defamatory slurs that falsely accused them of being paedophiles who manipulate and sexually exploit children. [para. 16] They contended this language was part of a longstanding homophobic and transphobic conspiracy theory historically used to vilify members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ and drag communities. They supported their position with extensive affidavit evidence detailing their distress and fear for their personal safety and reputations. To counter Webster’s claims, Hartlen provided examples of the books read at Drag Story Time, demonstrating that they focused on acceptance, identity, and self-worth, without any sexual or inappropriate content.

The plaintiffs supported their position with expert testimony. Dr Crookston explained that drag has long been a form of queer artistic expression and activism, and that events such as Drag Queen Story Hour foster inclusion for LGBTQ2+ families. Dr Mason traced how the term “groomer” has been weaponised since the 1970s to portray the LGBTQ+ community as threats to children, linking this rhetoric to rising hate speech and online harassment. Dr Mason concluded that calling drag performers “groomers” is used to target the LGBTQ+ community. The plaintiffs, therefore, maintained that Webster’s posts were baseless, malicious, and damaging to their reputations and the broader queer community.

The defendant, Brian Webster, denied that the posts were defamatory and argued that the cases were unsuitable for summary judgment, requiring a jury to determine the “reasonable person” test. He pleaded the defence of “fair comment,” asserting that his posts criticised the use of taxpayer funds and expressed his opinion on a matter of public interest. He claimed he used “grooming” to mean “the practice of preparing or training someone for a particular purpose or activity,” [para. 163] specifically, what he termed “drag pedagogy” or teaching children to “live queerly.” [paras 70–71] He relied on an academic article and an expert report from Dr Cantor, who opined that the term “grooming” can have multiple connotations, including influencing a child’s identity development.

The intervenor, Egale Canada, submitted that falsely labelling LGBTQ+ individuals as “groomers” recycles harmful stereotypes that have been rejected by Canadian courts and constitutes hate speech that fuels hatred and violence towards queer individuals. In support, Egale referred to Rainbow Alliance Dryden et al v. Webster, 2023 ONSC 7050, where the court recognised “groomer” as a slur implying that a person seeks to form a relationship with a child for the purpose of exploitation or abuse. They further contended that falsely labelling 2SLGBTQI people as groomers cannot qualify as fair comment, since reinforcing prejudicial myths about marginalised groups does not serve any legitimate public interest. Finally, Egale contended that the allegations were statements of verifiable fact (criminal conduct) made with malice, given Webster’s admitted lack of knowledge about the plaintiffs or their events.

The Court first held that the cases were suitable for determination by summary judgment. Citing Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, and Rule 20 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court found that the voluminous evidentiary record, including affidavits, cross-examinations, and expert reports, allowed it to fairly and justly make the necessary findings of fact and apply the legal principles without a trial.

The Court then applied the test for defamation from Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61, which requires a plaintiff to prove three elements on a balance of probabilities:

1. That the impugned words were defamatory, in that they would tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person;
2. That the words referred to the plaintiff; and
3. That the words were published to at least one other person.

Upon proof of these elements, falsity and damage are presumed, and the burden shifts to the defendant to advance a defence.

The Court held that “[Webster’s] posts were defamatory because they lowered the plaintiffs’ reputations in the eyes of reasonable persons.” [para 170] The Court observed that in his posts, Webster deliberately linked drag queens to children and implied an “illicit connection” by asking, “Why do drag queens need an audience of children?” and by emphasising the word “grooming” in capital letters. [para. 168] The Court further noted that Webster’s posts created the clear inference that “drag queens are grooming children for purposes of sexual abuse.” [para. 164] It found that the posts were intentionally designed to provoke “revulsion directed at the drag queens,” which predictably led Webster’s readers to respond with hate speech, accusing the plaintiffs of being “mentally ill pedophiles who exploit and sexually abuse children.” [para. 169] The Court deemed Webster’s posts “disingenuous,” noting that by linking to a news story about an unrelated individual convicted of child pornography offences in Thunder Bay, he intentionally created a false association with the plaintiffs. [para. 82]

The Court further rejected Webster’s alternate definition of “grooming” as “disingenuous” and not credible, noting that by linking to a news story about an unrelated individual convicted of child pornography offences in Thunder Bay, he intentionally created a false association with the plaintiffs. [para. 82] The Court held that the natural and ordinary meaning of the posts, reinforced by the violent and hateful reader comments Webster endorsed, was an accusation of paedophilia. The Court stated, “Mr. Webster’s language was a dog whistle to like-minded individuals” [para. 166] and that his posts “created an echo chamber for hate speech.” [para. 85] It affirmed the principle from Bagwalla v. Ronin, 2017 ONSC 6693, that “identifying a person as a sexual predator and sexual groomer only serves to lower the estimation of that person in the minds of right-thinking persons.” [para 161] Citing Hosseini v. Gharagozloo, 2023 ONSC 2469, the Court reaffirmed that “falsely labelling someone as a pedophile or a sexual predator or sexual groomer is defamatory.” [para. 160]

The Court held that the plaintiffs were clearly identifiable through the photos, event details, and context of the posts. Webster admitted that the posts were published to third parties via his Facebook page, which had thousands of followers. [paras. 173–177]

The Court analysed Webster’s pleaded defence of fair comment and rejected it on all required elements set out in WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40, in which the Supreme Court of Canada stated that fair comment must (1) “be on a matter of public interest,” (2) “be recognizable as comment as opposed to fact,” (3) “satisfy the objective test of whether ‘could any person honestly express that opinion on the proved facts’,” and (4) “not have been actuated by express malice.” [paras 193]

The Court held that the core of Webster’s message was hate speech, which is not in the public interest. It agreed with Egale that “falsely labelling 2SLGBTQI individuals as ‘groomers’ cannot be fair comment because perpetuating harmful myths and stereotypes about vulnerable members of society is not a matter of public interest.” [para 201]. It relied on Hudspeth v. Whatcott, 2017 ONSC 1708, 98 C.P.C., which held “hate speech is by its nature not in the public interest,” and Paramount Fine Foods v. Johnston, 2018 ONSC 3711, 142 O.R. (3d) 356, which stated that embedding defamatory comments in social commentary does not grant immunity. [paras. 197–198]

The Court also found no factual basis for the allegations. The plaintiffs had no criminal records, and the events contained no sexual content. Webster admitted he had never attended a drag story-time and had no personal knowledge of the plaintiffs. [para. 205] The Court noted the posts were presented as factual assertions – direct accusations of criminal grooming and child exploitation – not as honest opinion, and therefore could not qualify as fair comment. [para. 208]

The Court further concluded that Webster acted with malice, as defined in Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 SCR 1130. The Court noted that Webster published false statements with “reckless indifference as to the truth of his statements, for the purpose of injuring the plaintiffs because of spite or animosity, and for an improper purpose.” [para. 212] This was evidenced by his engagement with violent comments, his pattern of homophobic posts, and his decision to publish the second defamatory post after being served with a libel notice for the first.

The Court finally awarded each plaintiff CAD 75,000 in general damages, noting that the defamatory posts harmed both the individual plaintiffs and the corporate plaintiff, Rainbow Alliance Dryden, whose community-building reputation was tarnished by Webster’s accusations. It reaffirmed that in libel, damage is presumed once defamation is established and need not be proven through evidence of “actual loss or injury,” as stated in Rutman v. Rabinowitz, 2018 ONCA 80, 420 D.L.R. (4th) 310. [para. 219] The Court found the accusations were among the most damning possible and were widely disseminated online. It considered comparable awards, such as the CAD 75,000 in Zall v. Zall, 2016 BCSC 1730, for false allegations of sexual impropriety, and found the amount reasonable. [paras. 219–231] The Court also awarded each plaintiff an additional CAD 20,000 in aggravated damages. It found Webster’s conduct was “high-handed, oppressive, outrageous, and malicious,” which increased the plaintiffs’ humiliation and anxiety. The Court specifically condemned his use of the “Courthouse” branding, which lent a false air of official authority to his posts and “fostered disinformation and hate.” [paras. 232–251]

Ultimately, the Court granted summary judgment in favour of all plaintiffs, finding Brian Webster liable for defamation. It awarded total damages of CAD 95,000 to each plaintiff (CAD 75,000 general + CAD 20,000 aggravated) and invited submissions on costs.

---