A patient underwent ophthalmic treatment to improve their vision. For approximately one month following the treatment, the patient continued to experience pain and returned to the clinic on several occasions but, in their view, did not receive the appropriate care or attention.
The patient subsequently published a detailed Facebook post describing the treatment received, the difficulties encountered, and their personal conclusions regarding the experience.
The court held that the publication constituted defamation. However, the Defamation Prohibition Law provides several statutory defenses that may be invoked by a defendant in both civil and criminal defamation proceedings.
One such defense is fair comment. The court found that the underlying facts of the case were not in dispute and that the publisher’s conclusions constituted expressions of opinion rather than statements of fact. Furthermore, the publisher’s personal sense of grievance and suffering did not undermine their good faith.
Accordingly, the court held that the defendant was not liable for damages, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s legal costs and attorneys’ fees.
