In a recent decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, a founding member of a local social media group was held personally liable for defamatory comments posted by third-party members1. The case, which was heard in London, Ontario, underscores the potential legal risks faced by those who administer and moderate online communities. Deputy Judge David Miller presided over the matter of David Belliveau versus Victoria Quinlan, a case that highlights the intersection of modern social media culture and established provincial defamation laws.
The dispute originated from a Facebook group titled “Are We Dating the Same Guy in London Ontario,” which was established in early 2023. Victoria Quinlan, the defendant, was one of the three founding members and administrators of this digital community. The group was designed to provide a space for female members to communicate about men they were currently dating. According to the court records, the primary objective of the group was to allow women to identify potential safety risks and to determine if specific men were dating multiple members of the group simultaneously. Similar groups have emerged globally, creating a new digital landscape for interpersonal vetting and safety discussions.
Defending or filing a defamation lawsuit like the one in this article? Get legal advice on Zoom from an Ontario lawyer by clicking here.
To manage the group, Quinlan and her fellow administrators drafted a set of rules intended to govern member behavior. These rules prohibited members from sharing information outside of the group and restricted posts about individuals to include only their first names. Personal details such as workplace, phone numbers, or addresses were explicitly forbidden. Furthermore, the rules discouraged members from making fun of men, cracking jokes, or speculating about people they did not personally know. Despite these guidelines, the group became the center of a legal storm when members began posting about David Belliveau in April 2023.
The statements made about Belliveau within the group were overwhelmingly negative. Various members alleged that he was an “awful human being” and claimed that he had stolen money from a single mother. Others accused him of setting up fake Facebook accounts to harass women or lying about his professional life. While Belliveau worked as an account manager for a dental implant manufacturer, comments in the group suggested he falsely claimed to be a dentist. Additional accusations included claims that he was “sleazy,” a “total jerk,” and that he intentionally hid money from his child’s mother to avoid paying child support. One anonymous member even alleged that Belliveau had sent an unsolicited explicit image.
As these comments circulated, Belliveau took aggressive steps to address the situation. On April 12, 2023, he sent a series of emails to Quinlan’s employer. In these communications, he characterized the Facebook group as a “smut website” and accused Quinlan of dragging people’s names through the mud. He further claimed that he could afford a lawyer who would “smother” her. Despite these attempts to have Quinlan terminated, her employer took no action against her.
Around the same time, a separate incident occurred involving the London Fire Department. The court heard that the department had posted a memo advising employees that if Belliveau attended any fire stations, he should be asked to leave and corporate security should be notified. Belliveau testified that he had only visited a station to ask about a child custody matter involving the ex-husband of his then girlfriend. However, Deputy Judge Miller did not accept Belliveau’s version of the incident. The judge noted that it was highly unlikely the Deputy Fire Chief would issue such a memo unless a serious confrontation had occurred.
When the matter reached the Small Claims Court, the legal analysis centered on the three essential elements of defamation. For a plaintiff to succeed, they must prove that the words used were defamatory in a way that would lower their reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person, that the words referred to the plaintiff, and that the words were published to at least one person other than the plaintiff. Under Canadian law, if these elements are proven, the falsity of the statements and the resulting damages are generally presumed.
In his analysis, Deputy Judge Miller found that many of the comments posted in the group were indeed defamatory. This included statements calling Belliveau the “worst of the worst,” alleging he was a “douche bag,” and claiming he was a “danger.” The judge also determined that despite the group’s rules about using only first names, the context of the posts made it clear to readers that they were referring to David Belliveau. This shifted the burden of proof to Quinlan to establish a valid legal defense.
Quinlan’s legal team raised several defenses, beginning with a technical argument under the Libel and Slander Act. They argued that Belliveau had failed to provide written notice of his claim within six weeks of becoming aware of the alleged libel, which is a requirement for actions involving “broadcasts.” However, the court had to determine if a Facebook group qualifies as a broadcast under the specific wording of the Ontario statute. The Act defines broadcasting as the dissemination of signals or sounds intended to be received by the public through relay stations in Ontario.
Deputy Judge Miller noted that the Act was drafted in an era of traditional print and radio media and did not explicitly contemplate modern social media technology. Following previous judicial precedents, the judge concluded that there was no evidence to prove the Facebook posts were made from a “station in Ontario” or that they met the statutory definition of a broadcast. Consequently, the six-week notice period did not apply, and Belliveau’s claim was allowed to proceed.
The court then turned to the defense of qualified privilege. This defense applies when a statement is made on an occasion where the person making it has a legal, social, or moral duty to do so, and the recipient has a corresponding interest in receiving the information. This is often applied to special interest groups or social clubs. The judge agreed that the members of the Facebook group shared a common legitimate interest in exchanging information about the safety of men they encountered on dating sites.
However, qualified privilege can be defeated if the dominant motive for the publication is malice or if the information exceeds what is reasonably appropriate for the occasion. The judge found that many of the posts about Belliveau were malicious or went far beyond the legitimate safety purpose of the group. While Quinlan’s own comments about calling the police or the fire department memo were found to be either true or protected by privilege, she remained in a difficult position regarding the comments made by other members of the group.
The central question became whether Quinlan, as an administrator, was liable for the words of third parties. The court applied a three-part test established in previous Canadian case law. Liability for third-party defamatory material requires that the defendant had actual knowledge of the material, that they engaged in a deliberate act or inaction in the face of that knowledge, and that they had power and control over the content.
The evidence showed that Quinlan was aware of the defamatory posts and had even participated in the conversations surrounding them. Furthermore, as an administrator, she had the authority to remove both posts and comments that violated the group’s own rules. The judge rejected Quinlan’s argument that she only had the power to remove original posts rather than individual comments, calling the assertion contrary to common sense. Because she knew the comments were there and had the power to delete them but chose not to, the court found she had effectively adopted the defamatory material as her own.
Regarding the defense of fair comment, the court found it did not apply because the subject matter did not involve a matter of public interest. While the group members were curious about Belliveau’s dating history, the judge ruled that mere curiosity or “prurient interest” does not constitute a genuine public stake in the information.
When assessing damages, Belliveau claimed that the defamation had caused him to lose his job and significant future income. He argued that his customers in the dental industry learned of the posts and refused to work with him, leading to his termination. He sought compensation for a massive drop in his annual earnings. However, the court discovered a significant complicating factor. In December 2023, Belliveau had been arrested and charged with serious criminal offenses, including the sexual assault of a person under the age of sixteen.
Deputy Judge Miller found it more likely than not that these criminal charges, rather than the Facebook posts, were the true cause of Belliveau’s employment termination in early 2024. The judge noted that Belliveau provided no evidence from his employer or customers to support his claim that the social media comments were the reason for his financial loss. As a result, the claim for loss of income was denied.
In the final assessment, the judge awarded Belliveau $7,500 in general damages for the harm to his reputation. This amount took into account that Belliveau himself had contributed to the spread of the information by contacting Quinlan’s employer and a local radio station to discuss the matter. The judge declined to award punitive damages, finding that while Quinlan was negligent in her duties as an administrator, she did not act with the level of malice required for such an award.
The ruling serves as a reminder to social media moderators that they can be held legally responsible for the content they allow to remain on their platforms. Even in private or semi-private groups, the failure to remove known defamatory content can lead to personal liability for administrators. The court’s decision reflects the ongoing effort by the judiciary to apply traditional legal principles to the rapidly evolving world of online communication.
Read more about defamation cases here.
