The Supreme Court denied Jasmine Roy’s request for anonymity in a defamation lawsuit. The actor has indeed taken legal action against a man allegedly behind the appearance of his name on the Say His Name website’s list of alleged perpetrators in May 2021.
Court documents show that Mr Roy took numerous steps to obtain the retraction of a publication by Jean-François Robillard which he considers defamatory.
His statement would have led to the “Say his name” page including the name Jasmine Roy in the list of alleged perpetrators.
A formal notice was quickly sent to Mr. Robillard, as well as Say His Name administrators Delphine Bergeron and AA.
At the time, this procedure led to Jasmin Roy’s name being removed from the Say his name list.
However, in May 2021, Mr Robillard released a new message in which he not only repeated the allegations but also exposed the formal notice he had been sent, calling it an “attempt at intimidation”.
“You have asked me to remove your name from the attackers’ list, pay $150,000 in damages, and not discuss the issue of the aggression you committed against me or else I would expose myself to civil action if I not cooperating with your demands”, it says in the publication, which has also been withdrawn in the meantime.
Mr Robillard admitted deleting his initial posting in August 2020 but recognized the “irony” of the situation. “You are the head of a foundation against bullying, Jasmin, you should be a role model and not become a tyrant yourself.”
He also said that he had lodged a complaint with the police, but the complaint had not been accepted. “Unfortunately for me and fortunately for you … in cases of sexual assault or misconduct there are few or no witnesses. So, failing your statement […] it limits the work of the police … and for lack of evidence the police cannot move forward with the file, which is being closed for the time being,” he wrote.
Mr. Robillard claims “the right to speak, the right to say.” [son] History without a muzzle, without constraint”.
The release is again referred by Say his name, which puts the artist’s name back on the list.
A second formal request was sent to them, but this time Mr. Robillard refused to comply.
On June 4, 2021, Jasmin Roy’s attorney, Me Jocelyn Vézina, filed a request for the artist’s anonymity should he file a defamation lawsuit against Mr. Robillard. Before Judge Sylvain Lussier of the Quebec Supreme Court, he argued that the image of Mr. Roy and his foundation would suffer if he exposed himself.
“In addition, there is a high probability that third parties and business partners of [Jasmin Roy et de la Fondation Jasmin Roy]through the natural association with which one can connect [M. Robillard et Dis son nom] will be reluctant to continue working with her if the defamatory remarks about [Jasmin Roy] will be published and disseminated as part of the judicialization of these files,” the court documents read.
The lawyer also argued that the Jasmine Roy Foundation’s survival could be in jeopardy. “The existence and survival of [Fondation Jasmin Roy] is only possible thanks to the contribution of third parties and business partners. The publication and dissemination of court cases would pose a serious risk of cessation of activity [la Fondation Jasmin Roy] “.
Me Vézina also argued that his client was caught in a “trap” as Mr Robillard had pointed out in his recent publication: “You know that if you sue me your case will become public.”
Public character of the debates
In a decision issued in mid-June 2021, Judge Lussier recalled that the initiation of a judicial proceeding is associated with many inconveniences for any complainant. “There is a risk that the event will attract more media than the original event,” he notes. “The filing of an action for defamation is part of the right to a full defence: the honor and reputation of the injured party can be restored. “.
A media consortium that included Le Devoir had also challenged the artist’s request for anonymity.
On September 22, 2022, the Court of Appeals denied Mr. Roy’s motion, which then turned to the Supreme Court. This in turn rejected his request for anonymity in a judgment issued on Thursday. “The public nature of the debates is a fundamental principle of our justice system,” the appeals court judges recall in the file, citing the Sherman decision on which their decision is based.