A Manitoba dog-grooming operator’s defamation claim failed because a Facebook post urging people to withhold support from her husband did not lower her own reputation, the Court of King’s Bench ruled on April 14, 2026.
In McIntosh et al. v. Thiessen et al., 2026 MBKB 49, Justice Toews dismissed the claim pursued by Tanis Rae McIntosh over Mike Thiessen’s response to her husband Jeff’s criticism of a COVID-related rally in Winkler. The judge also concluded, in alternative reasoning, that Thiessen had established substantial truth and fair comment.
Although the reasons mentioned $7,500 in damages, that was only the amount the judge would have considered had damages needed to be decided. No damages were awarded. Thiessen instead received one set of tariff costs, payable jointly and severally by Tanis and Jeff, with the amount left for agreement or further submissions.
A public dispute became a business-reputation claim
The dispute began with an August 30, 2021 post in which Jeff sharply criticized rally participants and said he would largely stop supporting Winkler businesses, with exceptions tied to vaccination. Thiessen responded that Jeff disliked his neighbours and suggested the community withdraw its support from him.
Thiessen’s post connected Jeff to McBarn Kennels, an unincorporated dog-grooming business serving the Morden and Winkler area. His wording initially identified Jeff as an owner, and he later revised it to express that as his belief. Tanis maintained that she alone owned the business and that Jeff’s role was, at most, limited maintenance.
Only Tanis pursued the case at the hearing. The claim against another defendant had been discontinued, and Jeff was no longer participating. A summary judgment motion was converted by agreement into a one-day trial, with the evidence submitted through affidavits.
The post concerned the husband
The judge applied the requirement that a defamation plaintiff establish, among other things, that the challenged words referred to that plaintiff and would tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person. The court found that Tanis had not crossed that threshold, either personally or through McBarn.
Tanis had acknowledged in cross-examination that the post directed people not to support Jeff. The evidence also showed that people commenting on the post referred to him by name or male pronouns, rather than referring directly to Tanis or McBarn. Toews regarded those facts as supporting the conclusion that the post targeted Jeff’s reputation.
The ownership evidence also undermined Tanis’s position. The business-name registration had expired, its website did not identify its owners, and she had not produced the contemporaneous social-media material she said established her ownership. The couple jointly owned the land and buildings used by the business.
Jeff’s public posts described work for McBarn and referred to the business in collective terms. Toews found that he played an active part in its operation and held himself out as having a substantial interest in it. In the alternative truth analysis, the judge expressly found on a balance of probabilities that Jeff was an owner.
Truth and fair comment supplied alternative reasons
Having found the post was directed at Jeff rather than Tanis, the judge said no further analysis was necessary to dismiss the claim. The remaining defence findings therefore supplied alternative reasons for the same outcome.
For the truth defence, Toews found that Thiessen had proved the main substance of the statements about Jeff’s attitude toward his neighbours and his ownership of McBarn. Those were findings on the evidence in this dispute, including Jeff’s own posts, rather than a general rule that a spouse owns a business because the couple shares property.
The fair-comment analysis focused on the full context of the exchange. The judge treated the public rally and debate over vaccination and pandemic measures as matters of public interest, found a factual basis for Thiessen’s comments, and concluded that a person could honestly express the opinion on the proven facts.
Tanis alleged malice, which can defeat a fair-comment defence. Toews found she had not shown that Thiessen knowingly made false statements, was recklessly indifferent to their truth, or acted from spite or another improper purpose within the applicable legal test.
The ruling resolved this defamation action on its particular record. It did not establish that every call to boycott a business is protected, and the reasons did not determine a quantified business loss or report payment of the costs award.
