Ottawa woman threatened with lawsuit over negative reviews

An Ottawa woman is refusing to back downafter she was threatened with a six-figure lawsuit for postingnegative online reviews of a local restoration company.

Alexia Matte, 32,hired Canada's Restoration Services (CRS) after her mother's basement flooded when a sump pump failedon Jan. 12. But she wasn't satisfied with the work that was carried outanddecided to post negative reviews on Googleand on the website of the Better Business Bureau.

Two negative online reviews does not constitute a smear campaign by any stretch of the imagination.- Alexia Matte

Her reviews detaila number of complaints aboutCRSincluding that she was overcharged, that workers arrived lateand that the company ignored some of her requests.

CRSsaidthe allegations are untrue, the costwas"100%reasonable" and Matte only became aggravatedabout it whenshe learned she was "underinsured."

CBCcould notindependently verify either party's allegations.In astatement toCBCthe company's lawyer said CRSis a"highly reputable and reliable company with overwhelmingly positive reviews".

Threat of 6-figure lawsuit

On Feb. 9, a week after she posted the reviewsMatte received a cease and desist letterfrom a lawyer acting on behalf of CRS, which operates in five Canadian cities including Ottawa.

The letter cites a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decisionawardinga plaintiff $700,000 in damages for an "internet smear campaign" as an example of the steep penalty Matte could face.

The lawyer's letter also gave Matte a stark choice: either taken down the "malicious" reviews,or changethem to"positive" ones.

"I felt like the company was trying to bully me, I guess, into submission," Matte told CBC News.

'Feel the pain'

In the Feb. 9letter to Matte, the company lawyerdrew parallels between her reviews and the Toronto case, accusing both reviewers of attemptsto make the companies involved "feel the pain."

ButCaraZwibel, adirector withthe Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said thecases are not the same. One of the key differences is that in the Toronto example the defendants admitted liabilityin trying to smear a former business associate.

"They're very different situations but to a layperson reading the letter it's certainly scary to see that $700,00 judgment and be told this is exactly the same kind of thing you're doing,"Zwibelsaid.

"If you actually look at the case I don't think that's an apt comparison."

Ultimatum went too far, prof says

Brett Caraway, a professor of media law and economics at the University of Toronto,said the lawyer's letter was meant to elicit an "emotional" response from Matte, and went too far.

"To push it one step further and say, 'Actually, turn this into a positive review,' is overreach in my opinion," he said.

CBC hasreported on thelack of protection for consumers who post reviews onlineand businesses targeted by unfair reviews.

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association saidideally a company would counternegative reviews online with evidence and documentation about its good work, not threaten to launch a lawsuit.

"The effect ... [is] to chill freedom of speech in Canada," Joseph Hickey, executive director of the OCLA, told CBC News.

Charterrights not violated, lawyer says

CRSwas not available for an interview, but the company's lawyer, Robert Karrass,said in awritten statement toCBC that "Ms. Matte's civil liberties and Charter rights have not been violated, she has the right to post but my client also has the right not to be defamed.

"Although the Charter gives an individual the right to express themselves including through posts on the internet, those rights are subject to reasonable limits."

He went on to say acease and desist letter is acommon avenue that "gives the recipient the opportunity to stop and potentially reduce the damages they have exposed themselves to."

Karrasssaid the company only asked Matte tochangeher review to a positive one as an option, in case she was unable to remove her original post.

Limits to freedom of speech

Ottawa-based lawyer David Sherriff-Scott successfully defended a publisher of online reviews in a recent court case.

In a recent judgment regarding a dispute over the publication of a negative online review, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled the Better Business Bureau (BBB) was protected by what's known as "fair comment."

People always have to be cautious when they express themselves in public that they are doing it responsibly.- David Sherriff-Scott, lawyer

Sherriff-Scott acted for the BBB in the case. He said fair comment can be invoked as a defence when people express their opinion about a matter of public interest, when that opinion is based on known and provable facts contained in the review.

But he still advises people to be carefulabout what they post online, and warns there are limits to freedom of speech.

"People always have to be cautious when they express themselves in public that they are doing it responsibly. The problem is, the general public is not aware of the components of the successful application of the fair comment defence in a defamation case. Peopletend to just speak their minds spontaneously," he said.

In the meantime, Matte has yet to pay CRSfor the restoration work,and said she's ready to take the company on in court.

"Two negative online reviews does not constitute a smear campaign by any stretch of the imagination," Matte said.

"It's stressful... butI'm not going to back down. You can't bully unhappy customers, and I don't think I'm being unreasonable in anything I've said. Everything I've said I can prove."