Sentenced in recent years to fines of up to $115,000 for online reviews, Canadian consumers must be better protected and know the limits of their freedom of expression.

This is the main conclusion of a very detailed 77-page research report written by lawyer Véronique Parent. In addition to the jurisprudence of cases between 2018 and 2021, a total of 43 cases in 6 Canadian provinces. In addition, interviews were conducted with experts from different fields and six online focus groups were held.

According to the research report, “defamation lawsuits filed against consumers who used digital platforms to criticize their products or services have seen an increase in recent years.”

However, we note that in the current context, with the increased use of social media, the classic defamation action brought by companies appears ill-suited.

“In the decisions that were rendered, often, the judge concluded that the consumer had unfairly damaged the reputation of the company,” summarizes Mr. Parent. The issue, she believes, is that consumers are often unaware of where the line should not be crossed in their criticism.

Mr. Parent cites the example of Alberta, which has included a provision in the consumer protection law establishing such guidelines. “A company cannot bring an action for damages against a consumer for having published a review online, with some exceptions. We are talking about vexatious comments, personal attacks, abusive language with terms like “crook”, “thief”, comments in bad faith. »

“The idea is to find a balance between the consumer’s freedom of expression, but also the reputation of the company,” she explains.

“We do not have such precise provisions in Quebec. It’s a bit unclear for a consumer to know how far freedom of expression goes, at what point it becomes defamatory. »

For Option consommateurs, a lawsuit should only be admissible when it is established that the consumer has exceeded his freedom of expression and caused significant economic damage to the company. Currently, notes the organization, it is up to the courts to establish, on a case-by-case basis, the contours of consumers’ freedom of expression.

As a first solution, Option consommateurs suggests resorting to mediation. A pilot project launched by the organization a month ago is also underway, specifies Me Parent. “It’s new, so we don’t really have any concrete results to show yet. »

The other solution mentioned concerns the establishment of an “online defamation dispute tribunal”. “The idea is to allow disputes to be resolved more quickly by being online. »