Case information

Courts — Open court principle — Dagenais/Mentuck/Sherman analytical framework — Action in defamation — Orders requested to preserve anonymity of applicant alleged to be guilty of sexual misconduct — Whether person who alleges that they were falsely accused of sexual assault on social media and who wishes to go to court to stop such defamation can obtain orders limiting openness of proceedings.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE)

The applicant A.B., a well-known figure on the Quebec cultural scene and the president and director of the applicant Fondation A.B., learned in the summer of 2020 that his name was on a list of alleged attackers available on the Facebook page of the respondent Dis son nom. After a first demand letter was sent, the respondent Dis son nom removed A.B.’s name from its list. In May 2021, the respondent Jean-François Robillard denounced the legal proceedings initiated by A.B. on his personal Facebook page and alleged that their purpose was to intimidate and silence him. He added that, through his defamation suit, A.B. was going to expose what he had hoped to hide by sending the demand letter, because the case would then become public. The same month, A.B.’s name reappeared on the list put together by Dis son nom. On May 28, 2021, A.B. again sent demand letters to the respondents. On June 2 and 3, 2021, A.B. and his foundation filed an originating application in the Superior Court alleging defamation. To preserve their anonymity, the applicants also sought permission to bring an action anonymously against the respondents for an interlocutory and a permanent injunction and for damages, permission to elect domicile at their lawyers’ office, and an order prohibiting the publication or broadcasting of the proceedings, the exhibits and the testimony to be given in the case. The Superior Court dismissed the applications relating to the preservation of the applicants’ anonymity, except the application for permission to elect domicile at their lawyers’ office. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.