Editor’s note: This article was written from a translated version of the ruling.
A Quebec small claims court has dismissed a harassment claim brought by a strip club dancer against a customer and instead ordered her to pay $2,500 in damages for sending defamatory messages to the customer’s wife and friends on social media.
The case highlights the legal boundaries around workplace harassment claims and the potential consequences of retaliatory behaviour, particularly in industries where personal and professional boundaries can become blurred.
The incident
K.L., who worked as a dancer at La Source du Sexe strip club in Montreal, filed a $15,000 claim against A.L., alleging harassment and abuse during his visit to the club on April 18, 2024. L. had been working at the establishment since February 2024.
According to L.’s version of events, she recognized A.L. as a childhood acquaintance — a friend of her brother — when she approached his table to offer private dances. She claimed the atmosphere changed when one of A.L.’s friends returned from a private dance and allegedly bragged about forcing another dancer to perform acts that could result in her termination.
L. alleged that A.L. began asking “sexually invasive questions” to break down her boundaries so his friend could obtain sexual services from her. She testified that she felt “flanked between” A.L. and his friend during the 10-minute interaction.
A.L. presented a different account, stating he didn’t initially recognize L. and denied any abusive or threatening behaviour. He claimed it was L. who became aggressive, asking in “a screaming voice” whether his wife knew he was at the strip club.
The social media campaign
After the encounter, L. launched what the court characterized as a deliberate campaign to damage A.L.’s reputation and relationships. On the same night, she sent a text message to A.L.’s wife, A.S., using the alias “Jessica Carver.”
The message read: “Hi (A.S.), your husband (A.L.) is at the strip club right now and he is harassing the girls to the point that the police came. They took all the info of him and the guys at the table so now the police are aware of who he is and what he is been doing.”
L. included a photograph of A.L. sitting at a table in the club and added: “If anybody from my page gets contacted by him in retaliation for me sending you this message, I’m going to include that in the harassment complaint.”
The following day, L. escalated her actions by sending similar messages to approximately 50 people who had commented on A.L. and S.’s recent engagement announcement on Facebook. One message to a friend of the couple stated: “(A.L.) was harassing women for personal information at the strip club last night despite being told no multiple times, to the point that the police had to talk to him.”
In subsequent messages to S., L. threatened legal action, writing: “Your husband… is going to be sued for moral damages in small claims Court because of the sexual harassment that he participated in last night.” She also claimed A.L. would face “both criminal and civil charges.”
Court’s analysis of harassment
The court examined the legal definition of harassment, referencing several Quebec precedents. It noted that harassment requires “malicious and repeated acts toward others, likely to alter their physical or mental health, harm their rights or professional future.”
The court found that harassment “is insidious, treacherous and underhanded. It stems from malice and an intention to harm.” Examples include following, tracking, repeatedly communicating with someone, monitoring them, behaving aggressively toward them, and making threats.
Importantly, the court noted that “a complaint of harassment cannot occur on one occasion, for a brief period.”
Court’s findings
The court “concludes without hesitation that” A.L. “did not harass” L. Instead, it found that L. appeared to be “on a mission” and disapproved of men who visit strip clubs, which the court noted was “a clear contradiction, as she works in such an environment.”
The court stated: “This belief is what prompted” L. “to write to (A.S.) and other members of” A.L.’s “entourage.”
While acknowledging that L.’s general statements about harassment being unacceptable were true, the court found “no correlation between these comments and” A.L. “or his behaviour.”
Damages awarded
Rather than awarding damages to L., the court granted A.L.’s cross-claim and ordered L. to pay $2,500 in damages. The court found that L. “adopted a reprehensible conduct” contrary to article 1457 of the Civil Code of Quebec, which requires every person to act in a way that doesn’t cause harm to others.
The court determined that even if A.L. had been disrespectful, “nothing prevented” L. “from immediately leaving the table.” It found that “nothing justified” L.’s decision to text S. “or anyone else” in A.L.’s circle, “or to call the police, filing what is a clear illegal and unjustified complaint.”
The court concluded that L.’s “only purpose” was “to disrupt the relationship between” A.L. and S. and “to humiliate” A.L. “in front of his family and friends.”
The damages amount was specifically chosen “to send a clear message to” L. “that her conduct is reprehensible and must not occur again.”
Impact on relationships
The court heard testimony about the significant impact L.’s actions had on A.L. and his wife. S. became “fearful of looking at her messages” and both were “very upset” by the social media campaign.
The court also noted that the strip club manager filed a declaration denying L.’s claim that she was dismissed from the club because of A.L.’s complaint.
The court dismissed L.’s $15,000 claim entirely and ordered her to pay court costs of $345 in addition to the $2,500 in damages to A.L.
For more information, see Leblanc c. Lague, 2025 QCCQ 1842 (CanLII).
