A pro-life group has been given the go-ahead by the Ontario Court of Appeal to launch a civil lawsuit alleging an online activist posted videos containing staff contact information and encouraging her viewers to disrupt the group’s activities.
Activist Brooke Dietrich was sued by the group 40 Days for Life for defamation, internet harassment, fraud, breach of contract, inducing breach of contract, and civil conspiracy in relation to several TikTok videos she allegedly posted in 2021.
An Ontario Superior Court of Justice gave 40 Days permission to proceed with the lawsuit in 2022, however, Dietrich appealed.
In four of the videos, the Aug. 2 court decision overview said, Dietrich “encouraged people to sign up for 40 Days’ vigils and to then not show up. In several other videos, she made negative comments about 40 Days and its activities, including by stating that 40 Days lied, spread ‘false health information’, and engaged in ‘fearmongering’ and harassment. In two additional videos, Ms. Dietrich posted contact information for two of 40 Days’ employees.”
The overview added that Dietrich encouraged people to abandon virtual shopping carts with merchandise on the 40 Days website to disrupt their operations, the court decision noted.
“She claimed that her digital activism was a matter of trying to ’send a message' to 40 Days that it lacked support within the community,” the justices wrote.
“The motion judge rejected this characterization as inconsistent with the evidentiary record before her. With respect to several of the TikTok videos, the motion judge found that Ms. Dietrich’s intention was not to send a message to 40 Days, but to interfere with its operations – if not to stop the vigils altogether, to at least make them less effective.”
40 Days obtained an injunction against Dietrich prohibiting her from false signup to 40 Days activities, electronic harassment, sabotage, and interference with its activities.
“The injunction did not enjoin her from continuing to post about abortion or abortion protesting,” the appeal court said. “The injunction was later quashed on the basis that there was no indication that Ms. Dietrich sought to continue the impugned activity.”
The courts found that Dietrich’s actions related to a matter of public interest, that the claims of 40 Days had merit, and that the harm suffered by the group was “sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighed the public interest in protecting that expression.”
Dietrich used the defence of truth and fair comment, however, the courts said that the validity of those defences were in question.
The pro-life group “raised an arguable case that Ms. Dietrich may have communicated in a malicious or reckless manner, which would defeat the defences of truth and fair comment,” said the appeal court.
