CASE NAME:

Corion v. Plummer, 2022 CanLII 84382 (ON SCSM)

FACTS
This is a defamation case. The plaintiff, who is a 75 year-old married man with 4
children, claims that the defendant defamed him in the eyes of his wife and his church members.
The plaintiff claims $25,000 in defamation damages. 
Both parties–the plaintiff and the defendant– first met and played dominoes, a fund-raising
game organized by the plaintiff, at the Perth Seventh-day Adventist Church. The defendant sent
text messages about the plaintiff being gay to his wife and his congregation members in July
2018. The defendant admits to the text messages and affirms that the plaintiff is, in fact, gay.
The defendant recounted incidents of the plaintiff making sexual advances (touching him,
showing his body, seductively looking at him) towards the defendant between 2009 and 2014.
The plaintiff maintains that he only once touched the defendant when he shook hands with him
after winning a domino's championship. The plaintiff’s wife testified that the plaintiff is not gay.
The plaintiff claims that because homosexual people are looked down upon in the church, the
plaintiff has lost his credibility in the church. He has limited his association with his friends, and
his fundraising events at his church have also been affected. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case has only gone through and been heard by the Ontario superior court of justice. Small
Claims court. 

ISSUES
At issue is whether the plaintiff is able to prove that the defendant’s statements about the
plaintiff being gay lowered the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person?
 If the plaintiff is able to prove the above, then is the defendant able to prove that the plaintiff
being gay is true?

DECISION
The court found that the statements of the defendant about the plaintiff being gay did not pass
the test of it being defamatory in the eyes of a “reasonable person.” The defendant was the
successful party and the court ordered the plaintiff to pay $4,250 inclusive of HST in costs to
the defendant. 
The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed.

RATIO
The plaintiff failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant's words lowered
his reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person. (Grant v. Torstar). Although the defendant’s
statement may have impacted the plaintiff’s reputation in his church, it did not pass the test of
lowering his reputation in the eyes of a “reasonable person.”

REASONS
 The court found that the defendant’s statement may have lowered the plaintiff’s
reputation in his church, but the plaintiff failed to prove that the statements about him
being gay lowered his reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person.
 The case took place in 2018. There has been a progressive shift in the thinking and
mindset of a reasonable person in Canada towards homosexuality.
 Sexual orientation and gender identity are protected in employment, housing and
contracts under The Ontario Human Rights Code.
 In Egan v. Canada [1995], the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that sexual orientation is
protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
 In 2003 Ontario legalized same-sex marriages.
For the above reasons, the defendant’s statements about the plaintiff being gay did not lower his
reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person.

1
Nonetheless the defendant could not prove the statements about the plaintiff being gay to be
true. The defendant’s claims and allegations had no witnesses; it had factual inconsistencies;
and it contained many improbable events in trying to prove the plaintiff as gay. The evidence of
the plaintiff for not having made any sexual advances towards the plaintiff was accepted by the
court. 

In conclusion, because the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant’s statements passed the
test of it being defamatory in the eyes of a reasonable person, the plaintiff’s case was dismissed.