Employee’s Defamatory Criticisms of Employer Placed on Glassdoor’s Website was Not Protected by Anti-SLAPP Legislation
Litigants sued in defamation often try to get the case against them thrown out early under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c C.43: often referred to as an anti-SLAPP provision, where “SLAPP” stands for “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.” If the court is satisfied that a defamation lawsuit was just a brazen attempt to quell public interest speech (ie: send chills to the defendant on the hope that it stops them from expressing unfavourable views about the plaintiff), then the claim can be summarily struck.
Although the court must consider a number of factors during an anti-SLAPP motion, the first consideration for the court is whether the defendant’s expression relates to a matter of public interest: this is the defendant’s burden, and if not satisfied, the plaintiff’s claim for damages to reputation will continue.
In this recent decision, Glassdoor Inc. (“Glassdoor”) failed to convince the lower court, and the Ontario Court of Appeal, that the criticisms they posted by an anonymous former employee relating to the the plaintiff employer’s pay and benefit levels, work requirements, and company infrastructure, where topics of public interest.
The court rejected Glassdoor’s position that employee reviews of employers and working conditions made on a public site are of public interest to a segment of the public, namely, potential employees. In the end, the court was satisfied that “these were complaints that, while anonymous, reflected a private dispute with no real impact on others.” The court further noted that the plaintiff employer “was not engaged in providing services to the public; it was providing specialized services to a small number of customers.”
Although this case was directed at Glassdoor Inc. because the poster was anonymous (and named in the litigation as “John Doe”), the point remains that if the former employee’s identity was known, this claim would continue against him/her as well.
It will be interesting to see how this decision shifts the way Glassdoor posts reviews.
Echelon Environmental Inc. v. Glassdoor Inc., 2022 ONCA 391
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca391/2022onca391.html