Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The court considered whether SGS established the test for an interlocutory injunction restraining Mr. Carrier's online publications.
   
• Mr. Carrier disseminated hundreds of posts across multiple social media accounts and aliases despite formal demands that he stop.
   
• Evidence showed threatening language directed at SGS employees, including references to being "hunted" and a "citizen's arrest."
   
• Service of the motion was contested in substance, as Mr. Carrier appeared to destroy the materials he was personally served.
   
• Substantial indemnity costs were sought by SGS on the basis that Mr. Carrier ignored repeated written demands.
   
• Internet harassment, as recognized in Caplan v. Atas, was assessed alongside the defamation analysis.
   

Facts of the case

Jason Ronald Carrier worked for SGS Canada Inc. for two years, from October 2023 to October 2025, as a manager of business development, crop science, in the natural resources department. His employment was terminated without cause in October 2025. On February 2, 2026, Mr. Carrier commenced a human rights proceeding against SGS at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, alleging disability discrimination arising from a workplace car accident that he says caused a concussion requiring accommodation. As that proceeding advanced, SGS retained Stringer LLP to manage communications with Mr. Carrier; between December 2025 and June 2026, Stringer repeatedly instructed him to direct all communications through counsel and to stop contacting SGS employees. Mr. Carrier did not comply. He posted using his own name and several aliases, including The Grey King, Head Janitor, Local Food Champion, and LFC Network, across accounts on X, Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, and TikTok, reaching at least 4,300 followers. Between May 27 and July 22, 2026, SGS identified at least 700 online publications concerning the company, and after the application was issued on July 22, Mr. Carrier published or republished a further 300 posts between July 24 and August 5, 2026. The posts accused SGS of poisoning children, sending workers to war for profit, causing loss of life, being connected to COVID-19 and other diseases, operating through a hidden "shadow board," and being an illegitimate corporation. One SGS employee was singled out and called a "seed devil." Other posts contained threats, including references to a "bloodbath," unsheathed blades, demands that people "kneel," and statements that employees would be "hunted" or subjected to a "citizen's arrest." SGS served a notice of libel and contacted police, but the conduct escalated rather than stopped. Mr. Carrier was personally served with the application on July 24, 2026, at his home in Alexandria, Ontario, and that same day posted material suggesting he had burned the materials; SGS re-served him by email and courier as a precaution. He did not respond, serve materials, or appear at the August 6, 2026 hearing, though he was paged to the courtroom.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The motion turned on established common-law tests rather than a statute or contract. For the defamation-based relief, the court applied the three-part test from Bagwalla v. Ronin, 2017 ONSC 6693: that the publication is clearly defamatory, that any defence of justification or fair comment would inevitably fail, and that the applicant will suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction. For the harassment-based relief, the court applied the general injunction test from RJR MacDonald Inc. v. Canada, 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC): a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience. The tort of internet harassment, as recognized in Caplan v. Atas, 2021 ONSC 670, was also engaged, requiring conduct that is malicious or reckless, outrageous in character and degree, and intended to cause fear or anxiety. The Courts of Justice Act was referenced for the applicable post-judgment interest rate on the costs award.

Reasoning and analysis

Stewart J. found the three-part defamation test satisfied. The posts would lower SGS's reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person, referred to SGS and its officers and employees, and were communicated to others beyond SGS itself, meeting the publication requirement drawn from Grant v. Torstar Corp, 2009 SCC 61. The court assumed Mr. Carrier might rely on justification or fair comment but found both defences would fail, since there was no evidentiary support for the allegations and the posts reflected malice rather than genuine commentary. On irreparable harm, the court weighed SGS's scale as a multinational operating in 115 countries with over 100,000 employees against the risk that unfounded claims of illegal and unethical conduct would unsettle clients and the wider industry, noting the borderless and far-reaching nature of internet publication as described in CNSX Markets Inc. v. Marks, 2026 ONSC 3952. The court acknowledged the public interest in free expression but concluded, consistent with Levant v. Day, 2019 ONCA 244, that the posts amounted to personal attacks and threats rather than legitimate discourse. On the harassment claim, the court found a serious issue to be tried given the volume, frequency, and threatening tone of the communications, irreparable harm to both the individuals targeted and to SGS from the diversion of time and resources, and a balance of convenience favouring the injunction, since the order left Mr. Carrier free to pursue his HRTO proceeding, defend the application, and communicate with SGS's counsel.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court granted the injunction as requested by SGS, the successful party on the motion. Mr. Carrier is barred from publishing further material about SGS or anyone associated with it, from communicating with anyone connected to SGS other than through Stringer LLP on legal matters, and from sending harassing communications; he must preserve confidential copies of his existing posts before deleting them, with the order remaining in force until the underlying application is decided. On costs, SGS sought substantial indemnity costs of $51,877.19 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, along with disbursements of $532.19 for filing and service. The court found substantial indemnity costs appropriate given Mr. Carrier's failure to respond to written demands or the libel notice, and fixed reasonable and proportionate costs at $50,000, inclusive of all legal fees, disbursements, and HST, payable by Mr. Carrier by October 13, 2026, at 4:00 p.m., with post-judgment interest running at 4% in accordance with the 2026 third-quarter rate under the Courts of Justice Act.