On January 31st, a Thunder Bay judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled Brian Webster, a Calgarian construction worker who engages in “citizen journalism,” pay aggravated damages on summary judgement for suggesting Rainbow Alliance Dryden and some drag performers were “groomers” and “pedophiles” for a drag storytime events hosted at public libraries. This was because Webster wanted to bring “awareness to the fact that some drag queens have been charged with child pornography and are otherwise pedophiles.” Still, the court determined Webster’s posts “increased the plaintiff’s mental distress” and “was hate speech.”
According to a document from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice titled Reasons on Summary Judgement Motions for cases Rainbow Alliance Dryden et al. v. Webster and Crichton et al. v. Webster, the sum of $380,000 is payable by Webster to the plaintiffs of the associated cases.
Webster submitted the cases were novel and there was “no evidence” of defamation and therefore required a trial and a jury before the court.
“Mr. Webster submits that this is a novel case,” reads the document. “He submits that the test for defamation is not met because there is no evidence that the impugned words have lowered the plaintiffs’ reputations in the eyes of reasonable people.”
Moreover, Webster contended that his words were fair comment, only a jury could assess the impact of the defamation, and, “He also argues that an alternate meaning is available to understand the terms ‘grooming and ‘groom.'”
Despite Webster’s contentions, Madam Justice H. M. Pierce disagreed with Webster’s contentions.
“I do not agree that these cases are unsuitable for summary judgement,” said Madam Justice Pierce. “The parties have filed voluminous materials to allow the court to make the necessary findings of fact.” Adding, “I conclude that there is a complete record from which I will be able to consider the claims.”
Thus, summary judgement was determined suitable by Madam Justice Pierce for both cases.
While all parties submitted evidence before the court, only Webster’s were deemed to be “self-serving.”
“I conclude these materials are intended to justify Mr. Webster’s message for self-serving reasons,” stated Madam Justice Pierce. “Webster also stated in his affidavit, ‘I indicated that drag queens who need to perform for children might be grooming them which I define as to ‘live queerly.'”
“[Webster] also states ‘I brought awareness to the fact that some drag queens have been charged with child pornography and are otherwise pedophiles. I did not state these drag queens were pedophiles.'”
The so-called awareness Webster brought was in posts to followers of his Facebook page, Real Thunder Bay Courthouse – Inside Edition. However, Madam Justice Pierce had a different conclusion.
“It is evident that the defendant’s posts have increased the plaintiffs’ mental distress by his high-handed, spiteful, malicious and oppressive conduct,” said Madam Justice Pierce. “I find that, on a balance of probabilities, Mr. Webster was motivated by actual malice toward the plaintiffs who were members of a vulnerable community.
“The court condemns this conduct. It was hate speech. In my view, aggravated damages are warranted to denounce Mr. Webster’s conduct.”
