2023 ONSC 6075 (CanLII) | D’Alessio v. Chowdhury | CanLII

Online reviews have become a powerful tool for consumers to share their experiences and opinions about businesses and services. However, as a recent case in Ontario shows, posting negative reviews online can have serious legal consequences if the reviews are not based in fact.

In D’Alessio v. Chowdhury, 2023 ONSC 6075 an Ontario law firm and two lawyers sued their former client, Chowdhury, for defamation after she posted a negative Google review. Chowdhury accused the lawyers and firm of being incompetent, negligent, unprofessional, and shady. Chowdhury refused to retract or apologize for the review, which remained online for almost three months. The plaintiffs sought summary judgment and $30,000 in damages.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, finding that Chowdhury defamed them and failed to advance any defence. The court applied the three-part test for defamation from Grant v. Torstar:

a. The words must refer to the plaintiff;

b. The words were published, meaning they were communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff.; and

c. The impugned words were defamatory in the sense that they would tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person.

Justice Sutherland found that the plaintiffs had made out all three elements of the test. Chowdhury had not pleaded or advanced any defences — instead, her defence consisted entirely of disputing that the plaintiffs had made out their allegations. Justice Sutherland had no difficulty finding that the reviews were defamatory and that the plaintiffs had established liability.

On damages, Chowdhury argued that she was a single mother, not employed, and on some form of assistance. Justice Sutherland emphasized that Chowdhury’s financial situation did not insulate her from an award of damages, given her conduct and defamation:

A clear message must be made that such form of comments on an internet platform do not insulate someone from legal repercussions, such as an award of damages. Online comments are easy to do and seem distant and not accountable. But they are not. The defendant is responsible for her conduct and the quantum of damages should not be reduced simply because she is financially disadvantaged. The defendant should have thought about her state before typing the content and sending the Google Review that she did.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $20,000 in damages and $9,500 in costs.

D’Alessio v. Chowdhuryillustrates the potential legal consequences of posting defamatory statements online, especially on platforms with a broad reach such as Google. A defendant’s financial situation does not shield them from an appropriate damages award.

Before posting negative reviews online, it is important to consider the accuracy, fairness, and impact of the reviews, as well as the potential legal risks and costs of defending them.