Parole officer claimed defamation over social media posts by colleague
A federal parole officer who tried to sue a colleague for defamation over Facebook posts has been stopped in her tracks – twice.
In an Oct. 14 decision, Ontario Superior Court Justice Marc Smith ruled the dispute must be resolved through federal grievance procedures, not civil court, even though the alleged defamation occurred on social media outside work hours.
Bobby Bala, a parole officer with Correctional Service of Canada, sued Amy Vanrivong, a security intelligence analyst, for defamation after Vanrivong allegedly posted on Facebook "false statements about me to others maliciously on social media" following a conversation in the lobby of National Headquarters. Bala claimed the posts destroyed her reputation and "created an environment where I could no longer work for the same employer."
Wrong forum for workplace dispute
The Small Claims Court dismissed Bala's lawsuit, finding it had no jurisdiction because the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act gives exclusive authority to workplace grievance procedures. Bala appealed, arguing she never filed a grievance because her union told her it was a civil matter.
Justice Smith rejected that argument. Even if Bala never used the grievance process, the law still blocks her court access. "Section 236(1) of the Act declares that the right granted under the legislation to grieve any work-related dispute is 'in lieu of any right of action' that the employee may have in respect of the same matter," the court noted.
The decision cited a key precedent: "Section 236(2) expressly declares that the exclusivity of the grievance process identified in s. 236(1) operates whether or not the employee actually presents a grievance."
Workplace conversation equals workplace dispute
The court found the essential character of Bala's claim was employment-related, despite occurring on social media. The conversation happened at the workplace about managers and coworkers. The alleged damages related to her reputation in the workplace environment.
"There is no doubt that the essential character of the appellant's claim against the respondent is employment related," Justice Smith wrote. "The subject matter concerns statements made by and about colleagues and/or former colleagues. It happened at the workplace, and the alleged damages and/or consequences of these statements relate to her reputation in the workplace environment."
Bala's statement of claim specified she met Vanrivong in the lobby of National Headquarters, and their discussion was about her manager and coworkers. She alleged Vanrivong published the Facebook posts "identifying me as the instigator and thereby destroying my reputation and created an environment where I could no longer work for the same employer."
Social media platform doesn’t change jurisdiction
Bala argued the dispute fell outside workplace jurisdiction because the alleged defamation occurred on Facebook, not at work. The court disagreed, finding the subject matter determined jurisdiction, not where the statements were published.
Justice Smith emphasized the broad scope of workplace grievance procedures: "Conflicts related to an employee's terms and conditions of employment have been found to include allegations of defamation, such as those alleged in the Appellant's Small Claims Court action."
He cited previous cases where defamation claims between coworkers were deemed grievable workplace matters.
The court noted the conversation that sparked the Facebook posts happened at the workplace and concerned workplace relationships. "The appellant's claim against the respondent concerns a conversation that she had with the respondent at the workplace about her managers and co-workers," Justice Smith wrote. The online publication of statements about that workplace conversation remained within the scope of employment-related disputes.
The appeal was dismissed.
