Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Nicholas Polyzos, a notary, sued Nikolaos Giannias for $185,250 in damages over Google Reviews he alleged were defamatory.
• Although the court found the remarks defamatory, defamation alone does not create a presumption of fault under Quebec civil law.
• Defendant's posts were primarily based on publicly accessible newspaper articles about Polyzos, and the court found he did not knowingly disseminate false information.
• Credibility was central to the outcome, with the court finding Defendant's testimony more consistent with the overall evidence than Plaintiff's.
• Plaintiff failed to establish a causal link between the posts and the damages claimed, as the reputational harm was attributable to articles published in 2010.
• Legal costs were awarded against Plaintiff following the dismissal of his action.

Facts of the case

Nicholas Polyzos, a notary, brought a defamation action against Nikolaos Giannias, a man he had never previously met, arising from negative reviews posted on Google. The dispute originated when Giannias's mother passed away in August 2023, and his brother Harry — who had not been on speaking terms with Giannias for several years — was appointed liquidator of the estate, with Polyzos acting as the notary for the liquidation. At their mother's funeral, Harry referred to Polyzos as the "mob notary." Curious, Giannias searched online and discovered two newspaper articles — one from La Presse titled "Un notaire aux manœuvres douteuses" and another from Droit.inc titled "un notaire dans l'embarras" — both published on October 19, 2010. These articles described a Superior Court judgment criticizing Polyzos for abusing a business partner's trust, noted that the RCMP had taken interest in him during an operation named Colisée, and reported that he had been suspended for two months by the Chambre des notaires du Québec (CNQ) for improperly advising an elderly client.

Seeking a copy of his mother's will, Giannias called Polyzos on or around September 4, 2023. The parties gave sharply conflicting accounts of that call. Polyzos testified it was amicable and that he explained the required protocol, including a fee of $350. Giannias testified that Polyzos was abrupt and unprofessional, disclosed will contents unprompted, and refused to provide a copy on the basis that he was awaiting a will search. A second call occurred around September 25, 2023, after Giannias's brother became unreachable and cancelled a planned memorial. Again, the parties' accounts differed significantly. Following the second call, Giannias's wife — a lawyer — contacted the CNQ, which advised her to deal with Polyzos in writing and to reference article 484 C.C.P., which requires notaries to provide copies of wills to heirs upon payment of professional fees. On October 1, 2023, she emailed Polyzos citing that provision. Polyzos never responded to the email, despite acknowledging he received it. After Giannias filed a second complaint with the CNQ on December 16, 2023, the CNQ intervened and Polyzos agreed to respond in writing to any formal written request. A registered letter was sent on March 4, 2024, and Polyzos replied on March 8, 2024. The will was ultimately provided on May 8, 2024.

Frustrated with the experience, Giannias posted two reviews on Google on or about April 1, 2024. The first called Polyzos "a disgrace to his profession." The second described him as untrustworthy, stated he had been "suspended twice by the chamber of notaries" — when in fact he had been suspended once, for two months — claimed the RCMP had him "on their radar," and advised readers to do their due diligence. A screenshot of the CNQ's avis de radiation was attached to the second post. Polyzos was made aware of the reviews on July 1, 2024, and sent a letter of demand. Giannias complied immediately, and the posts were removed within hours. On August 20, 2024, Polyzos filed the present action claiming $185,250 in damages. In April 2026, Polyzos also alleged he discovered an additional post on a website called "Birdeye," which Giannias categorically denied posting, and which the court accepted.

Statutory provisions at issue

A key provision underpinning the dispute was article 484 C.C.P., which obliges notaries, upon payment of their professional fees, to issue copies of wills to heirs or their representatives or otherwise provide them access. This article was specifically referenced in the October 1, 2023 email sent by Giannias's wife, and the court found that Polyzos, as an experienced notary, knew or should have known this obligation applied to him. The defamation claim was governed by article 1457 C.C.Q., which requires a plaintiff to establish fault, injury, and a causal link. Punitive damages were assessed under article 49 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which requires proof that the defendant unlawfully and intentionally infringed the plaintiff's right to reputation.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court found the remarks posted on Google Reviews were defamatory, as an objective observer would view them as lowering Polyzos's standing and prompting unfavourable feelings toward him. However, the court emphasized the fundamental difference between Quebec civil law and common law on defamation: in Quebec, good faith is presumed and the plaintiff bears the burden of proving fault. Defamation does not create a presumption of fault.

Applying the three-part framework from Prud'homme v. Prud'homme, 2002 CSC 85, the court dismissed the first two scenarios — making remarks known to be false, or remarks one should have known to be false — because Giannias relied on newspaper articles that remained accessible online and whose contents Polyzos never challenged or sought to retract. The court noted that Polyzos presented no evidence that the articles' allegations were false, and that a parallel Court of Quebec decision, Polyzos v. Boyer, 2026 QCCQ 747, reached the same conclusion regarding the same articles in a related defamation action against a real estate broker. The one factual inaccuracy — stating Polyzos had been suspended twice rather than once — was attributed to Giannias misreading the avis de radiation attached to his own post, confusing the two-month duration of the suspension with the number of times it occurred. The court accepted this explanation, finding no knowing dissemination of false information.

On the third scenario — making unfavourable but true statements without valid reason — the court found that Giannias did have a valid reason. It accepted his version of the calls as more credible, finding that Polyzos had been uncooperative and likely rude, and that he had improperly failed to fulfill his legal obligation to provide the will before the CNQ intervened. Several credibility concerns were identified with Polyzos's testimony, including internal contradictions: at trial he claimed he never monitored his Google reviews, while his pretrial examination revealed he checked them every two to three weeks. The court also noted his failure to recall the timeline of key events and his omission of any reference to the initial mandate given to him by Giannias's brother. A pattern of unprofessional conduct was further drawn from the 2010 Superior Court judgment describing Polyzos in notably strong terms, his 2010 CNQ suspension, and the Court of Quebec's findings in Boyer. Giannias's immediate removal of the posts upon receiving the letter of demand, combined with his complaints to the CNQ, further supported the absence of malicious intent.

On the question of damages and causal link, the court found that even if fault had been established, Polyzos failed to prove that Giannias's posts caused him any cognizable harm. The reviews were available for only three months, from April 1 to July 1, 2024, and no evidence was adduced as to how many people viewed them. Polyzos provided no financial statements or other business records to demonstrate the impact on his practice. His Google star rating stood at 3.9 while the posts were live, rose to 4.2 after their removal in December 2024, and later dropped to 3.5 in 2026 — objectively demonstrating that Defendant's posts had no real impact on his rating. The only testimony linking the posts to reputational harm came from a funeral director who had referred clients to Polyzos for 14 years, but the court found it unpersuasive: the witness admitted he had never googled Polyzos and was unaware of the 2010 articles, making it more probable that his client's reference to an RCMP investigation related to those longstanding articles rather than to Giannias's short-lived posts. The punitive damages claim was similarly rejected, as the court found Giannias's intent was to express dissatisfaction with Polyzos's professional conduct and to relay public information, not to cause deliberate harm.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court dismissed Polyzos's action in its entirety. Giannias was the successful party. No monetary award, damages, or compensation of any amount was granted to Polyzos, and legal costs were ordered against him.