Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Court assessed whether online posts on a website and social media accounts were defamatory of the applicant law firm and its partners.
• Evidence linking the respondent to “The Daily” website and associated X/Instagram accounts was central to proving publication responsibility.
• The judge considered whether the posts targeted the applicants in reprisal for their role as counsel in a prior defamation action (the CATIE lawsuit).
• The material was evaluated for homophobic and sexually charged insinuations that could lower the applicants’ personal and professional reputations.
• The respondent’s own affidavits and online admissions were weighed against his claim of misunderstanding and his request for an adjournment.
• The court examined whether a permanent injunction and modest costs were a proportionate remedy to stop a pattern of “relentless” online attacks.

Background and parties

This case arises from an application brought in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice by the law firm Judson Howie LLP and its named partners, Douglas Judson and Peter Howie, against an individual, Peter Scott Blackwell. The applicants sought a permanent injunction requiring Mr. Blackwell to remove a series of online publications and to refrain from publishing any further defamatory material about them. The matter was heard by Justice W.D. Newton, Regional Senior Judge (R.S.J.), with reasons released on November 28, 2025, under citation 2025 ONSC 6689. The litigation is closely connected to an earlier defamation proceeding in Ottawa (the CATIE lawsuit), where Mr. Blackwell had been sued by the Canadian Aids Treatment Information Exchange (CATIE) and certain individuals associated with that organization, and where the applicants in this proceeding had acted as counsel for the CATIE plaintiffs. In that earlier action, a different judge (McVey J.) had validated service, noted Mr. Blackwell in default, and awarded $1.75 million in damages and a permanent injunction against him in favour of CATIE and the individual plaintiffs. That judgment, however, is distinct from the present application, which concerns only the reputational and injunctive issues relating to Judson Howie LLP and its partners.

The CATIE lawsuit and its aftermath

The factual backdrop to the present case is the CATIE defamation action commenced in 2024. CATIE and various employees and board members retained Judson Howie LLP, through partners Douglas Judson and Peter Howie, to pursue claims against Mr. Blackwell. Their objectives were threefold: to obtain damages for defamation, to secure a permanent injunction requiring the removal of all defamatory material published online about CATIE and the individual plaintiffs, and to prohibit any further defamatory publications. In that Ottawa proceeding, service of the statement of claim on Mr. Blackwell was validated, he was noted in default, and the plaintiffs successfully moved for default judgment. McVey J. awarded substantial damages—$1.75 million—and granted a permanent injunction. The reasons in that case identified Messrs. Judson and Howie as counsel for the CATIE plaintiffs, bringing them into public association with the litigation and, as the current application demonstrates, into the crosshairs of Mr. Blackwell’s subsequent online campaign. Following the CATIE judgment, Mr. Blackwell sought to challenge the result by bringing a motion to set aside the default judgment in Ottawa. That effort forms part of the procedural context for this case, but it does not change the central focus before Justice Newton: whether his subsequent online attacks on the lawyers themselves were defamatory and warranted a separate, permanent injunction.

The online posts and their content

After the release of the CATIE reasons, a series of posts began appearing on a website called “The Daily” and on associated social media accounts, especially on X (formerly Twitter) under the handle @VoteCanadaCom, which was linked to The Daily, and an Instagram account of the same name associated with “Scottie Blackwell.” The applicants’ evidence, primarily through the affidavit of Douglas Judson, described these posts in detail. On August 23, 2025, The Daily published an article titled “Douglas Judson and Catie’s Shameful Crusade: Bullying Communities and Pushing Taxpayer Funded Filth.” The article carried a photograph of Mr. Judson with superimposed text reading “Things Doug Likes to Defend,” alongside a National Post headline referring to “inappropriate sexual handouts to children.” The article further alleged that “critics assert” Judson Howie LLP “employed deceptive tactics” to obtain the judgment against Mr. Blackwell, characterizing their conduct as “either gross incompetence or deliberate manipulation.” A second article on August 28, 2025, displayed a photograph of both Mr. Judson and Mr. Howie with the headline “Taxpayer Funder Filth: Nonprofits’ Perverted Material Plague Schools, Punish Whistleblower,” again linking the firm and its partners to the CATIE defamation judgment and casting them as complicit in alleged wrongdoing involving sexualized content. On X, beginning around August 21, 2025, over one hundred posts targeted Mr. Judson, often in homophobic or sexually charged terms. One post featured his image under the caption “Judson’s Fairy Tales,” accompanied by images of drag performers. Mr. Judson deposed that this imagery was “plainly intended to be homophobic.” Other posts associated Mr. Judson, Mr. Howie, and their firm with explicit or suggestive imagery derived from harm-reduction “Sex from A-to-Z” cards produced by the AIDS Committee of Toronto, implying that the applicants were “sexual deviants” or defenders of sexually inappropriate material. Some posts went further, alleging that Mr. Judson had arranged an assault on Mr. Blackwell at his workplace and that he had lied to the court. Many of these posts were directed or tagged to the Treasurer of the Law Society of Ontario and to various Benchers, indicating an effort to damage the applicants’ professional standing before their regulator and peers.

Linking the respondent to the publications

A key evidentiary issue was whether the applicants could satisfactorily link these anonymous or pseudonymous online publications to Mr. Blackwell. They relied on several strands of evidence. First, they pointed to an admission by Mr. Blackwell in an X post on August 28, 2025, made from the @VoteCanadaCom account, in which he identified himself as “Peter Scott Blackwell” and described himself as the one bringing attention to these issues. Second, they highlighted the striking similarity and connection between The Daily website and the @VoteCanadaCom X account, suggesting common authorship or control. Third, they noted that the Instagram account associated with @VoteCanadaCom was linked to “Scottie Blackwell,” another indicator of Mr. Blackwell’s involvement. Finally, the timing of the campaign—commencing shortly after the release of the CATIE judgment—strongly supported the inference that these posts were in reprisal for the applicants’ representation of CATIE in the earlier defamation action. Taken together, the court accepted that this circumstantial and direct evidence established that Mr. Blackwell was the publisher of the impugned content on The Daily and the related social media feeds.

Procedural history of the application

The application for an injunction by Judson Howie LLP and its partners first came before Justice Newton on October 23, 2025. Before that hearing, Mr. Blackwell had filed a motion without notice seeking several procedural accommodations: an adjournment or extension of time to file responding materials, additional time to retain counsel, permission to serve the applicants by email, authorization for such email service under the Rules of Civil Procedure, and “reasonable accommodation” for what he described as developmental learning disabilities and other barriers to access to justice. In his supporting affidavit, Mr. Blackwell admitted that he had been served with the application on October 3, 2025, but said he initially believed the materials related to the CATIE lawsuit rather than a new application. Citing this misunderstanding, his inability to retain a lawyer, and his disabilities, he requested more time. Although his motion materials were not served on the applicants, Justice Newton directed the Registrar to accept them and, over the applicants’ objections, granted an adjournment to November 20, 2025. The adjournment was made subject to an important interim condition: that Mr. Blackwell immediately cease “any further defamatory or harassing publishing, whether online or otherwise, about or depicting the applicants” until further order of the court. On November 13 and 14, 2025, Mr. Blackwell delivered several documents: an incomplete fee waiver request, a notice of appearance, affidavits in this application and in support of his motion to set aside the CATIE judgment, an affidavit from a supporter, Joan Teresa Askew, and an affidavit of service for these materials. Justice Newton again directed the Registrar to accept the documents despite the incomplete fee waiver, to ensure that the matter could be addressed on November 20. In these affidavits, Mr. Blackwell described his developmental and learning disabilities and his financial difficulties, and he framed his original posts as a reaction to discovering that the “Sex from A-to-Z” harm-reduction cards were allegedly reaching minors. He claimed that his concern was about inappropriate sexual material being accessed by children and that he did not intend to harass anyone or appreciate the legal implications of his online expressions. He did not, however, seriously dispute that he was responsible for the impugned posts about the applicants. At the November 20 hearing, Mr. Blackwell appeared with a support person, Ms. Duggan, without objection from the applicants. He indicated that he understood he was facing an application for removal of posts and a prohibition on further postings, although he had previously thought the matter was a contempt motion. He asked that this application be adjourned pending the determination of his motion in Ottawa to set aside the CATIE default judgment and said he would comply with the terms of the injunction.

The court’s analysis of defamation and need for injunctive relief

Justice Newton approached the case by applying the well-established elements of defamation as articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Grant v. Torstar Corp., requiring proof that: (1) the impugned words were defamatory in the sense that they would tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person; (2) the words in fact referred to the plaintiffs; and (3) the words were published to at least one person other than the plaintiffs. Examining the record, the judge was satisfied that each of these elements was met. The posts described the applicants in highly pejorative and sensationalized terms, associating them with “taxpayer funded filth,” “perverted material,” and homophobic stereotypes, while accusing them of deceit and manipulation in obtaining the CATIE judgment. Such content clearly had a tendency to lower their reputations in the eyes of reasonable members of the public and of professional regulators and colleagues. The posts unmistakably referred to the applicants by name and image; they were specifically about Douglas Judson, Peter Howie, and their firm, rather than being general commentary on institutions. Finally, the posts were widely published on The Daily website and on public social media platforms, satisfying the publication requirement. Justice Newton further found that the attacks were both personal and professional in nature and were not properly characterized as part of a legitimate effort to challenge or set aside the CATIE default judgment. Instead, they were reprisals directed at the applicants for performing their professional role as counsel for CATIE. On the evidentiary record, Justice Newton concluded that the applicants had established that the posts were defamatory, were about them, were published by Mr. Blackwell, and were in retaliation for their representation of CATIE. The material filed by or on behalf of Mr. Blackwell, including his own affidavits and that of Ms. Askew, demonstrated that he had sufficient understanding of the legal process, the issues at stake, and how to put his position before the court, undercutting any suggestion that he could not defend himself. While the court acknowledged his disabilities and financial constraints, these factors did not justify allowing what the judge characterized as “relentless attacks” on the applicants to continue.

Disposition and outcome

After hearing submissions on November 20, 2025, Justice Newton directed that the draft order granting the injunctive relief sought by the applicants should issue, subject to minor amendments. The final order required that all impugned posts be removed by November 25, 2025, removed an inapplicable reference to a “Reply Record,” and fixed costs against Mr. Blackwell in the modest amount of $500. The court declined to adjourn the application to await the outcome of Mr. Blackwell’s motion in Ottawa to set aside the CATIE default judgment, holding that the online attacks on the applicants were separate from that process and could not be allowed to continue unchecked. In the judge’s view, a permanent injunction was appropriate and proportionate, given the sustained nature of the defamatory and harassing campaign against lawyers whose only role was to represent their client in earlier litigation. In the result, the application by Judson Howie LLP, Douglas Judson, and Peter Howie was granted in full. They obtained a permanent injunction compelling Mr. Blackwell to remove the defamatory online material and prohibiting any further such publications. No damages were awarded to the applicants in this proceeding; the only monetary order in this decision was costs fixed at $500 payable by Mr. Blackwell to the applicants. The earlier award of $1.75 million in damages arose in the separate CATIE action and not in this case. Accordingly, for purposes of this decision, the successful parties are the applicants, and the total amount ordered in their favour in this proceeding is limited to $500 in costs, with no additional damages or monetary awards granted.