I spent yesterday afternoon in a wood-paneled courtroom watching Justice Elena Kowalski deliver what may become a landmark ruling in Canadian defamation law. The Ontario Superior Court awarded $1.7 million in damages to five LGBTQ+ educators targeted by a coordinated online smear campaign that falsely labeled them as “groomers” and “child predators.”
“The defendants wielded accusations like weapons, knowing full well the devastating impact their words would have,” Justice Kowalski stated in her 86-page decision. “Such reckless disregard for truth cannot be sheltered under the guise of free expression.“
The case, Mercer et al. v. TruthForce Media Inc., centered on a series of 2023 social media posts, videos, and articles that targeted the plaintiffs – all teachers or educational consultants who had contributed to curriculum resources on gender identity and sexual orientation. The content created by TruthForce Media and its CEO, Raymond Woodward, reached an estimated audience of over 2 million Canadians.
Court documents revealed that after the defamatory content spread online, all five plaintiffs received death threats. Three were forced to relocate, and one attempted suicide following months of harassment.
The ruling represents the largest defamation award in Ontario involving online harassment targeting LGBTQ+ individuals. Justice Kowalski’s decision specifically noted that labeling someone a “groomer” without evidence constitutes defamation per se under Canadian law – meaning harm is presumed without needing to prove specific damages.
I reviewed over 200 pages of court filings and spoke with legal experts who believe this case could reshape how Canadian courts handle digital defamation cases in politically charged contexts.
“This ruling recognizes that using dehumanizing language against marginalized communities isn’t just offensive – it can cause real, measurable harm,” explained Maya Krishnan, a civil liberties attorney with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association who wasn’t directly involved in the case but has followed it closely.
The defendants had claimed protection under fair comment provisions, arguing their content represented opinion on matters of public interest. The court rejected this defense, finding their statements were presented as fact rather than opinion and lacked any factual basis.
Dr. Jenna Mercer, the lead plaintiff and a high school teacher with 17 years of experience, testified that the campaign destroyed her reputation and career. “I received over 300 threatening messages. Parents demanded I be fired. I couldn’t sleep, couldn’t eat,” she told the court in February.
When I spoke with Mercer yesterday after the ruling, she appeared both vindicated and exhausted. “This was never about money. It was about establishing that you can’t destroy people’s lives with lies and call it political discourse,” she said, her voice breaking. “But the damage is done. No amount of money brings back three years of my life.”
The ruling draws a clear line between protected speech and harmful defamation, according to University of Toronto law professor Catherine Williams. “Justice Kowalski distinguished between criticizing educational policies – which remains fully protected speech – and making false accusations about specific individuals’ conduct or character,” Williams told me.
The evidence presented at trial included internal communications from TruthForce Media that suggested they knew the allegations were false but published them anyway to generate engagement. “Get the base fired up about groomers in schools. Traffic spikes when we use that word,” read one email from Woodward to his content team.
Emily Tse of the Digital Justice Collective, who supported the plaintiffs with technical evidence, noted that the case exposed the mechanics of coordinated online harassment. “This wasn’t random internet trolling. Our analysis showed a deliberate amplification strategy using multiple accounts and targeted advertising to ensure these accusations reached the plaintiffs’ communities,” she explained.
The case coincides with rising concerns about educator harassment in Canada. A 2024 Canadian Teachers’ Federation survey found that 64% of LGBTQ+ educators reported experiencing online harassment related to their identity or curriculum content, with 28% considering leaving the profession as a result.
Justice Kowalski ordered TruthForce Media to remove all defamatory content and publish the court’s judgment on their platforms for 30 days. The monetary award includes $1.2 million in general damages, $300,000 in aggravated damages, and $200,000 in punitive damages.
The defendants’ lawyer, James Howlett, indicated they plan to appeal, claiming the award is “disproportionate” and will have a “chilling effect on legitimate public discourse about educational policy.”
But Justice Kowalski anticipated this argument in her ruling: “Nothing in this decision prevents robust debate about curriculum content or educational approaches. What it does prevent is destroying individuals’ reputations and safety through calculated falsehoods.“
For Dr. Mercer and her co-plaintiffs, the legal victory offers validation but incomplete closure. “We’ve established an important precedent,” she told me as we walked out of the courthouse. “But I still can’t walk into a classroom without looking over my shoulder.”
The case may signal a turning point in how Canadian courts weigh free expression against the tangible harms of targeted digital harassment – particularly when such campaigns weaponize accusations against already vulnerable communities.
