A former employee of a pet food maker in British Columbia, who bad-mouthed the company in online posts, has successfully appealed a court-ordered injunction that barred her from making any comments about the company.
The B.C. Court of Appeal tossed out the interlocutory injunction that had prevented the worker — YY — from posting online about her ex-employer, a pet food store named 16 Pet Food & Supplies Inc., also branded as WooooF.
Background
YY worked for WooooF for just one month in October 2022. Despite leaving the store on seemingly amicable terms, she later made several disparaging social media posts about the store, primarily focusing on a power outage at WooooF that she alleged caused issues with its freezers.
The posts, translated from Chinese, labeled the store as “disgusting” and accused its owners of mistreatment and dishonesty.
Following a “cease and desist” letter from WooooF’s lawyers, YY not only retained her posts but added further comments about the power outage and the letter itself. In response, WooooF initiated legal action, alleging defamation and seeking an injunction to stop YY from making such comments.
On March 1, 2023, a chambers judge granted WooooF an interlocutory injunction. The injunction required YY to delete her online comments and barred her from posting any further content about the store. In addition, the judge ordered her to pay $3,000 in costs.
The appeal
YY appealed this decision, contending that the injunction was granted in error. She argued that the legal test applied was incorrect, that WooooF’s claim of irreparable harm was unfounded, and that the injunction was overly broad, among other grounds.
The Court of Appeal agreed with her contention. The judgment emphasized that for an interlocutory injunction to be granted in a defamation context, the impugned statements must be “manifestly defamatory” to the extent that a contrary jury verdict would be deemed perverse.
The court noted that YY’s defenses of “truth, justification, and fair comment” were still valid possibilities.
“While WooooF has adduced evidence that no meat thawed during the power outage that occurred in November 2022 and (YY) has not adduced any evidence to establish otherwise, in my view, WooooF has not proven to the required standard that (YY) does not have a sustainable defence,” the Court of Appeal said.
“In other words, at this stage of the proceedings, I cannot say that it is ‘beyond doubt’ that no meat thawed during the power outage and was then refrozen.”
It was not contested she had removed the alleged defamatory posts and, in the absence of real risk she will make further posts, an interlocutory injunction is “simply not necessary,” it said.
As such, the order was deemed overbroad, and the interlocutory injunction was set aside. The Court of Appeal also reversed the costs order against Yu.
A broader concern
A broader concern emerged from this case, echoing sentiments from a 2021 critique by Professor Hilary Young on the extent of Canadian defamation injunctions. She emphasized the risks of unjustly restraining lawful speech. Young categorizes various defamation injunctions, highlighting potential pitfalls of certain types.
In YY’s case, WooooF was granted a sweeping injunction, mirroring a precedent in another case, Arvanitis BCSC No. 1.
The injunction didn’t just target the allegedly defamatory posts but also barred YY from posting any content about WooooF, including positive comments or factual updates about the ongoing litigation.
The Court of Appeal also noted she would be unable to even post content making an apology to WoooF, if she chose to do so, as a result of the injunction.
“I understand WooooF’s desire to create an easily enforceable order,” the court said. “I also understand the judge’s concern about both the power of the Internet to spread falsehoods and (YY’s) response to the ‘cease and desist’ letter. Nevertheless, in my respectful view, the order was overbroad.”
For more information, see Yu v. 16 Pet Food & Supplies Inc., 2023 BCCA 397 (CanLII)
