Case information

Civil procedure — Permanent injunction — Defamation — Whether permanent injunction generally and indefinitely prohibiting any form of communication in respect of third party is consistent with right to freedom of expression — Whether courts can, without serious assessment of context or rights involved, impose permanent injunction based on unverified evidence not subject to cross examination — Whether summary dismissal of appeal under art. 365 of Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR, c. C 25.01, without analysis of grounds raised or recognition of unrepresented status of applicant, is consistent with right to effective remedy guaranteed by Constitution — Whether principles of access to justice and equality are complied with when substantial extrajudicial fees are imposed on unrepresented party without analysis of reasonableness or proportionality of those fees — Whether constitutional and legal limits on regulation of comments made on digital platforms justify intervention of Court to standardize law throughout country.

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.

The applicant, Roya Esfahani, went to a Second Cup coffee shop operated by the respondent 9387 9062 Québec Inc., the president and majority shareholder of which is the respondent Milad Koliana, and had an unpleasant experience there. Following that visit, she posted about thirty negative reviews of the coffee shop on the Internet, under several different names and using various email addresses. The applicant was given notice to cease her defamatory comments. Because she continued, the respondents initiated injunction proceedings. A first provisional interlocutory injunction order was made, but the applicant violated it. The order was then renewed in the form of a safeguard order until the hearing on the interlocutory injunction. An interlocutory injunction was then issued. Monast J. of the Quebec Superior Court subsequently allowed the respondents’ application for a permanent injunction and damages. She ordered the applicant to pay $20,000 in moral and punitive damages as well as to reimburse a portion of the legal fees, in the amount of $65,000. The applicant appealed the judgment, while the respondents sought the dismissal of that appeal. The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the motion to dismiss the appeal in part and dismissed the appeal.