Court orders self-rep to remove online libels of opposing counsel

Case Summary

Judson Howie LLP et al v. Blackwell, 2025 ONSC 6689

In Judson Howie LLP et al v. Blackwell, 2025 ONSC 6689, Newton RSJ granted our firm’s application for a permanent injunction requiring the respondent—a self-represented litigant—to remove from publication more than one hundred defamatory online publications about our firm and its named partners.

The respondent's publications appeared after the court had ordered a substantial defamation judgment against him, in August 2025, in favour of our clients. That earlier decision, CATIE et al v. Blackwell, 2025 ONSC 4678 (summarized here), awarded the successful plaintiffs $1.75 million in damages, plus costs, arising from an extensive pattern of defamatory and harassing online publications of a similar nature.

In the present proceeding, the respondent falsely alleged, among other things, that our firm hired someone to assault him and that we promoted the distribution of sexual content to children. Many of these posts were published on X (formerly Twitter) and tagged the treasurer and benchers of the Law Society of Ontario, as well as to other public officials. His Honour found the posts to be plainly defamatory, concluding that:

A permanent injunction is appropriate in these circumstances given … the relentless attacks upon the applicants who are lawyers, and whose reputations were attacked because they represented a client.

His Honour’s decision aligns with established jurisprudence holding that injunctive relief is appropriate in defamation cases where there is a demonstrated likelihood of continued publication of defamatory material, or where enforcement of a damages award may not be possible (see, for instance, Sustainable Development Technology Canada v. Sigurdson, 2018 ONSC 7320, at para. 57, and St. Lewis v. Rancourt, 2015 ONCA 513, at para. 13).

Here, the earlier CATIE judgment is likely to exhaust any assets of the respondent. The applicants filed evidence showing that he explicitly intended to continue posting about them. The respondent also filed evidence confirming his limited ability to satisfy a judgment.

While His Honour's reasons on this application are concise, they reflect a recognition that attacks on counsel for representing their clients are inappropriate and an interference with the court's process that warrant judicial intervention. The decision might assist other members of the bar who find themselves facing unwarranted public attacks by self-represented parties.

For more information, please contact:

Douglas W. Judson (he/him)

Judson Howie LLP

Email: doug@judsonhowie.ca