People's Party of Canada partly liable in Winnipeg defamation case, appeals court rules

People's Party of Canada partly liable in Winnipeg defamation case, appeals court rules

Activist Omar Kinnarath was described as a terrorist by a party official on social media in 2019

The People's Party of Canada is partially on the hook for defamatory statements a campaign staffer wrote about a Winnipeg activist in 2019, Manitoba's highest court has ruled.

The political party, which was founded by Maxime Bernier in 2018, is vicariously liable for a social media post on its Winnipeg Centre electoral district association's Twitter account that described Omar Kinnarath as a terrorist, the province's Court of Appeal said in a written decision dated Sept. 28.

It was a repost of a statement made by the district association's then-CEO, Monique Choiselat, on her personal Facebook account after Kinnarath successfully pushed for the cancellation of a People's Party meet-and-greet in Winnipeg during the 2019 federal election campaign.

Choiselat's Facebook posts included a photo of Kinnarath — who is a visible minority and a Muslim — with a definition of the word "terrorist," the appeal court decision says. The post also listed Kinnarath's name, phone number, email and an out-of-date home address.

Choiselat republished the original post on the district association's account on Twitter (now known as X), and added the words "Terrorism is not Free Speech. Just saying…"

In 2025, Kinnarath was awarded $10,000 — $5,000 in general damages and $5,000 for aggravated damages — after a Court of King's Bench judge ruled Choiselat's statements were defamatory.

But the trial judge dismissed the activist's defamation claims against the People's Party of Canada, ruling it was not liable for Choiselat's post on the party's Twitter account because that post violated the party's social media policy.

Judge finds activist was defamed by People's Party of Canada official, awards him $10K in damages

Kinnarath appealed that decision, arguing the People's Party should have been found directly liable for the Twitter post, and vicariously liable for the defamatory statements on Choiselat’s personal Facebook account.

He also argued the award for aggravated damages was too low, and said the judge should have recognized a new tort of "doxing" — the release of personal information online without the person's permission.

No increase in damages: appeal court

The appeal court's decision, written by Justice Jennifer Pfuetzner on behalf of a three-judge panel, said the trial judge erred when he failed to apply required legal liability tests when dismissing the claims.

Pfuetzner said the party "significantly increased" the risks of harming the public by naming Choiselat as the district's association CEO, making her the party's primary representative in the riding and giving her "an opportunity to abuse her power."

"I am persuaded on balance that there is a strong connection between the authority that the PPC gave to Choiselat as the CEO of the [association] and her action of making the Twitter post," Pfuetzner wrote.

The People's Party had argued Choiselat was one of thousands of volunteers working for the party during the 2019 election, and that she had deliberately contravened its policies.

The party said it knew nothing of her actions at the time, and that it took immediate steps to remove her once it learned about the situation.

The appeal court decision noted Choiselat was authorized to use the Twitter account, and posting on it was among her responsibilities.

However, the appeal court did not agree with Kinnarath's argument the party was directly responsible for the defamatory post, or that it should also be held liable for Choiselat's statements on her personal Facebook account.

It also did not agree to impose harsher damages for defamation or to recognize a new legal wrong over doxing.

"Existing remedies are adequate and there is no 'gap' here," it said.

"While the award in the present case is perhaps low, the range of damages for social media defamation is wide and awards are highly fact-driven."

The damages awarded against the party are not in addition to those awarded against Choiselat. Both parties are instead jointly liable for the $5,000 awarded at trial in general damages.

Kinnarath is also entitled to some trial costs against the party, reversing the trial judge's decision that ordered Kinnarath to pay for the party's costs.