The Ontario Court of Appeal has reinstated a defamation lawsuit brought by Universalcare Canada Inc., Villa Colombo Seniors Centre (Vaughan) Inc., and CEO Joseph Gulizia against a woman who admitted to operating Twitter accounts that published hundreds of critical posts about the facility and its management. The decision1 in overturns a Superior Court ruling that dismissed the action under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP legislation without completing the full statutory analysis.
The dispute began after the respondent’s mother lived at Villa Colombo Seniors Centre in Vaughan. Dissatisfied with her mother’s care, the respondent voiced her concerns to management, staff, and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Villa Colombo also raised complaints about the respondent’s conduct, which led to a temporary restriction of her visitation privileges by Gulizia.
In the months and years that followed, the appellants discovered several anonymous Twitter accounts posting derogatory statements about them. The accounts, “Villa Colombo Vaughan Abuses Seniors” (10,000 followers), “Vaughan Elder Abuse LTC” (61,000 followers), and “Happy Days” (44,000 followers), published roughly 100 tweets over a three-year period. Posts included photographs of Gulizia and captions calling him “a disgusting pig,” alleging elder abuse, claiming the home ran a “death squad,” and warning that residents would be harmed if families spoke out. Some staff members were referred to as “devils.”
The appellants believed the respondent was behind the accounts and launched a defamation suit in December 2019. She denied authorship until 2021, when she amended her defence and moved to have the case dismissed under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, Ontario’s anti-SLAPP provision. That section allows a court to dismiss proceedings arising from an expression on a matter of public interest unless the plaintiff can show the case has substantial merit, the defendant has no valid defence, and the likely harm is serious enough to outweigh the public interest in protecting the expression.
In December 2023, the motion judge dismissed the action, finding the tweets as a whole related to elder care in long-term care homes, a matter of public interest. The judge did not address whether the claim had merit or whether any defence could succeed, focusing instead on whether the plaintiffs had shown serious harm. She concluded their evidence consisted mainly of unsubstantiated statements from Gulizia, including claims that staff avoided certain areas and that the Director of Care resigned due to harassment. The judge determined the harm related more to the respondent’s in-person conduct than her tweets, inferred that the lawsuit was intended to “teach her a lesson” and “deter others,” and ordered the plaintiffs to pay $100,000 in costs.
On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the judge failed to conduct the full analysis required by section 137.1(4), including assessing the merits of the defamation claim and the absence of a valid defence. Justice B.W. Miller, writing for a unanimous panel, agreed. The court upheld the finding that the tweets related to a matter of public interest but concluded the motion judge erred in assessing harm too narrowly and in assuming the expression had value without evaluating its quality or whether it might have been motivated by malice.
The Court of Appeal noted that allegations of serious wrongdoing against a CEO in a regulated industry, including claims of criminal conduct, carry potential for significant reputational harm, even if precise damages are not yet proven. The motion judge should have considered representative examples of the tweets and assessed whether they supported an inference of likely harm. The court also stressed that not all speech on matters of public interest is of high value, and such value must be weighed against the public interest in allowing a plaintiff to pursue redress.
The appeal was allowed, the dismissal and costs order set aside, and the defamation action restored. The respondent may bring a new anti-SLAPP motion before a different judge if she chooses. The appellants were awarded $15,000 in appeal costs.
Read more Ontario legal news here.
