Background
Oumer Kinnarath, a critic of the People’s Party of Canada (PPC), helped persuade a Winnipeg art gallery to cancel an event organized by the party’s Winnipeg Centre Electoral District Association (EDA). Monique Choiselat, the EDA’s unpaid chief executive officer, responded by posting statements on her personal Facebook account that called Kinnarath a terrorist and accused him of threatening arson. One post also displayed his photograph and listed identifying information, including an outdated home address, telephone number and email address.
Choiselat later published the material through the EDA’s official Twitter account. Both platforms removed the posts, and the PPC subsequently removed Choiselat from her EDA position. The trial judge held Choiselat liable for defamation, awarding $5,000 in general damages and $5,000 in aggravated damages, but dismissed the claim against the PPC and declined to recognize a new tort of malicious publication of personal identifying information, or doxxing. Kinnarath appealed those rulings and the amount of damages.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. Although Choiselat was not a directing mind of the national party and the PPC had not specifically authorized the publication, the PPC was vicariously liable for the defamatory Twitter post. By appointing Choiselat to lead the EDA, authorizing her to manage its official account and allowing her to post without prior approval, the PPC significantly increased the risk of the harm that occurred. The post was also connected to the friction and confrontation inherent in political activity.
The PPC was not vicariously liable for Choiselat’s personal Facebook posts because her ability to use that account was not derived from authority conferred by the party. The Court upheld the damages awards against Choiselat, noting the absence of demonstrated reputational harm and Kinnarath’s own republication of the defamatory material. The PPC and Choiselat were made jointly and severally liable for the existing $5,000 general-damages award; that amount was not additional to Choiselat’s liability.
The Court also upheld the refusal to recognize a new tort of doxxing. On these facts, the identifying information came from Kinnarath’s email signature, was partly outdated, caused no proven physical harm and was published as part of the defamation rather than as a stand-alone act. Existing defamation remedies were adequate, and the Court left for another day whether Manitoba’s Privacy Act provides an adequate remedy for doxxing.
Key Takeaways
- A political party may be vicariously liable for an intentional tort committed through an official local social-media account when the authority it conferred created a strong connection between the assigned role and the wrongdoing.
- The same organization is not necessarily liable for similar statements made through an official’s personal account when use of that account did not depend on organizational authority.
- A plaintiff’s republication of defamatory material may mitigate damages by suggesting that the publication was not regarded as seriously harmful and by widening its dissemination.
- Courts will not recognize a new doxxing tort unless the facts disclose a distinct wrong affecting a recognized legal interest, existing remedies are inadequate and judicial creation of the tort is otherwise appropriate.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the Supreme Court of Canada’s enterprise-risk approach to an unpaid political-party official’s misuse of an authorized social-media account. Organizations may face liability even when a representative violates express policies, particularly where the organization entrusted that person with unsupervised control over an account presented to the public as official.
The ruling also illustrates the restrained approach Canadian courts take toward new privacy-related torts. Publishing personal identifiers can aggravate defamation damages, but it will not automatically justify a separate cause of action when the information was not private, the additional harm was marginal and established remedies address the principal wrong.