Are Negative Online Reviews Protected Speech? The Ontario Court of Appeal Weighs In

A Case That Could Change How We Think About Online Reviews

In Benchwood Builders, Inc. v. Prescott, 2025 ONCA 171, the Ontario Court of Appeal delivered a decision that has significant implications for anyone who has ever left — or been the target of — a negative online review. The case addresses a fundamental question: when someone posts a critical review of a business online, is that automatically a matter of "public interest" that is protected from defamation claims under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP legislation?

The Court of Appeal’s answer was no — and the Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear the case, meaning the final word has not yet been spoken.

What Happened

The dispute arose from a home renovation project. Homeowners hired a contractor, Benchwood Builders, to perform work on their property. After the project was completed, disputes arose over the quality of work and payment. When the contractor used photos of the completed renovation in promotional materials, the homeowners responded by posting a series of negative reviews online over a three-month period.

Benchwood Builders sued for defamation. The homeowners brought an anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, arguing that their reviews were expressions on a matter of public interest and should be protected. The motion judge agreed and dismissed the defamation claim. Benchwood appealed.

What Is Anti-SLAPP?

SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Anti-SLAPP legislation is designed to prevent powerful parties from using defamation lawsuits to silence critics on matters of genuine public concern. Under Ontario’s framework, if a defendant can show that the lawsuit arises from an expression relating to a matter of public interest, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the claim has substantial merit and that the defendant has no valid defence.

The key threshold question is whether the expression relates to a matter of "public interest." If it does not, the anti-SLAPP motion fails at the first step.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appeal reversed the motion judge’s decision, holding that the online reviews in this case did not relate to a matter of public interest. The Court drew a distinction between consumer reviews that address a genuine public concern — such as safety issues, fraud, or widespread deceptive practices — and reviews that arise from a private commercial dispute between two roughly equal parties.

The Court emphasized that simply posting something online does not automatically make it a matter of public interest. A private dispute that happens to be aired publicly is still a private dispute. The fact that the reviews were posted on a public platform did not transform a bilateral commercial disagreement into a question of public concern.

Why This Matters

This decision is important for several reasons. For businesses, it provides reassurance that they are not powerless against targeted online review campaigns that arise from private disputes. For consumers, it clarifies that the anti-SLAPP shield is not unlimited — posting negative reviews as part of an ongoing personal dispute with a business may not be protected.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision to grant leave to appeal means this issue will receive the highest level of judicial scrutiny. The outcome could reshape the landscape for online reviews, defamation claims, and anti-SLAPP motions across Canada.

What to Watch For

Until the Supreme Court issues its decision, the Benchwood Builders case stands as the leading Ontario authority on this point. If you are a business dealing with a targeted negative review campaign, or a consumer who has been threatened with a defamation lawsuit over an online review, the legal analysis now requires careful consideration of whether the underlying dispute is truly a matter of public interest or a private commercial disagreement. The answer to that question determines whether anti-SLAPP protection applies — and the stakes on both sides are significant.