Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Defamation, harassment, and violations of the rights to reputation, privacy, and image through pseudonymous Facebook profiles were the central claims under articles 4, 5, and 49 of the Quebec Charter and articles 3, 35, 36, and 1457 of the Civil Code of Québec.
• Attribution of anonymous profiles was established through presumptions of fact, which the Court accepted only where they were serious, precise, and concordant (art. 2848 C.c.Q.).
• Filing the complaint with the Ordre des médecins vétérinaires du Québec (OMVQ) was held not to be a fault; the fault lay in Morasse's subsequent online campaign.
• Exhibit P-2/12 was excluded from evidence because it contained the opinion of a person who did not testify, contrary to arts. 231, 270, and 279 C.p.c.
• Causation limited recovery: losses tied to Morin's own decisions (closing her professional page, launching a new business) were not compensable, and several claimed heads of damages were reduced or refused.
• Morasse's counterclaim alleging harassment by the Morin couple was dismissed as unfounded, the Court finding her presumptions regarding the "Jérôme Carrier" and "Harcèlement" profiles insufficient.

Facts of the case

Caroline Morin, a pet-store adviser for 24 years employed at Animalerie Amigo since 2020, created a professional Facebook page, "Caro conseillère en soins animaliers," on May 5, 2024. On June 2, 2024, Caroline Morasse, an animal-rights advocate active on social media, became convinced that Morin was illegally practising veterinary medicine and filed a complaint with the OMVQ. Beyond the complaint, Morasse denounced Morin online without using her own name, admitting she created and used the profiles "Caro Kenzo" and "Caro conseillère en n'importe quoi." Morin and her spouse, Sébastien Denis, alleged that Morasse also created and used other profiles to harm and harass them, including "CM," "Caroline Morin arnaqueuse," "Pratique illégale," "Harceleurs et intimidateurs," and "Harceleurs," which Morasse denied. On June 19, 2024, the couple sent formal notices to each profile demanding that the harassment and defamation cease and claiming $19,474.20. Their action, filed September 27, 2024 and modified October 31, 2024, sought $57,000. Morasse counterclaimed, alleging the couple harassed her in revenge for her OMVQ complaint, seeking $63,400 by her modified counterclaim. The Court also refused to admit exhibit P-2/12, filed under seal, because it reported the opinions of a person who had not testified.

Legal provisions and principles at issue

The dispute rested on statutory protections rather than a contract. Article 4 of the Quebec Charter provides that every person has a right to the safeguard of their dignity, honour, and reputation, and article 5 guarantees respect for private life. Articles 3 and 35 C.c.Q. codify these rights, and article 36 C.c.Q. treats the use of a person's name or image for purposes other than the legitimate information of the public as an invasion of privacy. Article 1457 C.c.Q. imposes the general duty not to cause injury to others and grounds extracontractual civil liability, requiring proof of fault, injury, and causal link on the balance of probabilities. Article 49 of the Charter entitles a victim of unlawful interference to compensation for moral or material prejudice and, where the interference is unlawful and intentional, allows punitive damages, capped by the preventive-function limit in article 1621 C.c.Q. Because there was no direct proof of who owned the fake profiles, the rules on presumptions of fact (arts. 2846 and 2848 C.c.Q.) were also central: only presumptions that are serious, precise, and concordant may be considered.

The court's reasoning and analysis

The Court, per Judge Pierre A. Gagnon, first held that Morasse committed no fault in filing the OMVQ complaint, which she made in the sincere belief, reinforced by a veterinarian friend, that Morin was practising illegally. Her fault lay in what followed. The Court did not believe her explanation for creating "Caro conseillère en n'importe quoi" and found that this page — using Morin's photo without consent, labelling her a "fausse vétérinaire," linking her to a news story about dogs' deaths, publishing her employer's contact details, and referencing the television program J.E. in what the Court called a barely veiled threat — infringed Morin's privacy and reputation and confirmed the harassment. On the disputed profiles, the Court applied presumptions of fact. It attributed "CM" to Morasse because of the initials and the timing of the posts confirming the OMVQ complaint; it attributed "Pratique illégale" to her because only she had received the confidential acknowledgment from the syndic's office that the post reproduced, and by quoting the phrase about illegal practice out of context she misled readers into believing the OMVQ had found Morin at fault when it had merely routed the complaint internally. The profile "Caroline Morin – Arnaqueuse" was attributed to Morasse through identifying content, including references to managing several Facebook groups and to the documents sent to the AMVQ and OMVQ, and its threatening messages of June 17 and 20, 2024 constituted intimidation and harassment. The "Harceleurs Intimidateurs" and "Harceleurs" profiles were likewise attributed to her because their messages contained information, such as the patio-heater episode, that could only come from her; associating the couple with "charlatans de la médecine" and using their photos without permission was defamatory and violated their right to their image. On damages, causation narrowed the award. The claim for lost sponsorship benefits ($6,000) failed because Morin closed her professional page the very day of the OMVQ complaint, and the complaint itself was not a fault. Recalculating her employment-income loss and accounting for her employment-insurance benefits and her decision to open her own pet business, the Court awarded her $4,000; Denis, who lacked precise records of missed work, received $4,000 for his income loss. Loan-related costs of $8,470 were refused as already compensated through the income awards and interest. The Court allowed the detective fees ($258.69), medication costs ($498.24), and registered mail ($30), but refused lawyer's fees of $1,397.20. Applying the Supreme Court's combined approach to non-pecuniary damages and comparing the Esfahani precedent, it noted the objective gravity of repeated pseudonymous defamation amplified on the employer's site, Morin's resulting illness and prolonged work stoppage, and the roughly six weeks of harassment, but also the relatively limited diffusion, fixing moral damages at $9,000 for Morin and $1,500 for Denis. Punitive damages were set modestly — $1,000 for Morin and $200 for Denis — given Morasse's limited financial means, her cessation of publications after the formal notice, and the low risk of recurrence. Finally, the Court rejected the counterclaim: Morasse's presumptions that the couple was behind the "Jérôme Carrier" and "Harcèlement" profiles were not sufficiently serious, precise, and concordant, and the couple's attempts to identify her and demand that she stop, including the six formal notices, were legitimate steps, not harassment.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court granted the action and dismissed the counterclaim, making Caroline Morin and Sébastien Denis the successful parties. Morasse was ordered to pay Morin $14,786.93 and Denis $5,700 — a combined total of $20,486.93 — with interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity under article 1619 C.c.Q. from July 19, 2024, together with legal costs. The judgment stands as a caution that while using a pseudonym online is not in itself wrongful, it becomes so when deployed to defame, harass, and conceal the author's identity in violation of others' rights.