Judge dismisses Richmond Hill Coun. Cilevitz’s defamation suits against residents under anti-SLAPP law

Yorkregion.com
Aug. 31, 2022

A Superior Court justice has dismissed two legal actions brought by Richmond Hill Coun. Karen Cilevitz against resident Matthew Bergman and others over negative comments on separate occasions in 2018 that she alleged were defamatory and caused her harm.

Justice Stephen Bale ruled on Aug. 5 against both of the Ward 5 councillor’s defamation claims under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP legislation, finding that Cilevitz’s claims did not have substantial merit or the defendants had valid defence or the harm caused on her was not “sufficiently serious.”

"I am pleased with the judge’s decision and feel it speaks for itself," said Bergman, a local musician who is also known as Matt Groopie. He was a defendant in both lawsuits.

In the reasons provided for the ruling, Justice Bale analyzed Cilevitz’s allegations regarding Bergman’s posts and other defendants’ public statements, including calling her a “corrupt liar,” accusing her of “harassing” a resident and alleging she “abused” her position as a councillor.

While agreeing that some of the comments were “defamatory,” the justice said that they were also either supported by evidence or the defendants were able to rely on the defence of qualified privilege, which protects statements made in certain circumstances where a person has a duty to communicate and the other has a corresponding duty to receive the information.

“The statements of claim that I filed describe my opinion of what was said by the defendants. I still believe that what they said about me was wrong and libellous. I’m currently considering my appeal options and it would not be appropriate to comment further,” Cilevitz said in a statement to the Liberal.

In June 2018, Cilevitz commenced her first legal action against Bergman, seeking $500,000 in damages over a series of postings Bergman made on Facebook between May and June that the councillor alleged has caused her to “suffer damage to her feelings and damage to her reputation.”

The action was commenced amid what would become a prolonged dispute between Cilevitz and Bergman’s friend, Steffi Goodfield, centred around the naming of a musical event in Ward 5 of Richmond Hill.

The Superior Court decision describes how “the saga began in December 2017” when Bergman messaged Cilevitz’s spouse, a local musician, telling him to “stop bullying” Goodfield, and Cilevitz “then decided to involve herself in the dispute” by undertaking “a course of conduct” toward Goodfield that was “ultimately found to be bullying.”

It came to a head at the first Richmond Hill council meeting after the 2018 municipal election when Bergman, alongside eight delegates, spoke to the council and demanded Cilevitz be held accountable following an integrity commissioner’s report that found she breached the code of conduct over bullying Goodfield.

At the meeting, council adopted Regional Coun. Carmine Perrelli's motion to suspend Cilevitz’s pay for 90 days -- the highest penalty that the Municipal Act permits -- while the commissioner recommended a reprimand. She’s currently seeking a judicial review of the penalty.

In March 2019, Cilevitz brought her second lawsuit against a number of individuals, including Bergman, Perrelli and former Ward 5 councillor Nicandro Papa (also known as Nick Papa), as well as the City of Richmond Hill.

In this suit, Cilevitz sought close to $2 million in damages over allegedly defamatory words used by the individuals at the council meeting and a message sent by Papa. She later entered into confidential settlements with the city, Perrelli and a resident, Cilevitz told the Liberal.

Cilevitz alleged several defendants were motivated by malice when they published the defamatory words and their conduct was “high-handed and callous” and demonstrated a “total disregard” for the truth and her reputation. However, the court made no findings of malice against any defendant in its decision.

Under the anti-SLAPP law, once the defendants have established that the impugned expression is a matter of public interest, the onus shifts to the plaintiff (Cilevitz) to show that she has or will suffer harm as a result of the defendants' expressions, such that the public interest in allowing their legal proceeding to continue outweighs any deleterious effects on free expression and public participation.

Justice Bale found that Cilevitz had failed to show sufficient grounds to establish that the financial harm she had suffered -- the loss of three months of pay -- was a result of the alleged defamatory statements made by the defendants at the council meeting. The balance of the public interest required dismissing the claims.