Dental clinic sues patient for defamation over online review Lawsuits become more common in internet age By: Tyler Searle Posted: 6:38 PM CST Monday, Jan. 27, 2025

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 27/01/2025 (571 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A Winnipeg dental clinic, which has a history of filing defamation lawsuits, is suing a patient who published an online review accusing its staff of misleading her about the cost of a procedure.

Greenwoods Dental Centre’s suit claims her online statements caused it to “suffer injury and damage to its reputation, goodwill, business, business relationships and profitability.”

The lawsuit, which was filed this month, marked at least the second time the Winnipeg-based chain of dental clinics has sued someone in relation to online remarks. It named a patient in a similar suit in 2021.

Greenwoods’ latest claim stemmed from a Google review made by the defendant last November, in which she said she “had a terrible experience with Greenwoods Dental Centre and cannot recommend their services.”

She claimed clinic staff said her insurance would cover 80 per cent of the cost of dental services, but after they were completed she learned it would only cover around 15 per cent. It meant she had to pay $1,000 out of pocket.

“As a full-time student, this financial burden was overwhelming, and the lack of clear communication from their office was incredibly frustrating, unprofessional and rude,” the woman wrote in the review, a copy of which was included in the lawsuit.

“Instead of working with me to resolve the issue, they sent my account to a collection agency immediately and refused to speak with me. I was threatened with damage to my credit score if I didn’t pay in full immediately.”

The woman said she did not sign a pre-authorization document for her insurance, and accused the clinic of not conducting its due diligence.

In its lawsuit, Greenwoods denied the woman’s version of events and said the statement is “categorically false, inaccurate and defamatory.”

“As a full-time student, this financial burden was overwhelming.”– defendant in lawsuit

Clinic staff never said her insurance would cover any portion of the procedure, and it was her responsibility to ensure she had the appropriate coverage, the lawsuit said.

It said the defendant did complete a pre-authorization form before the work was performed.

“Neither the plaintiff, nor any staff employed by the plaintiff, ‘threatened’ the defendant in any way, instead, staff… did all they could to resolve the issue before the defendant simply cut off all communication unilaterally,” the suit said.

“The aforesaid statements… were designed to try to leverage a smaller cost for services still unpaid by the defendant.”

Greenwoods sent the woman a cease-and-desist notice about one month after she made the post, demanding it be removed. As of Jan. 13, it was still online, the lawsuit said.

The clinic has asked the courts to impose an injunction and force the woman to remove the post. It seeks general, special and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

The woman has not filed a statement of defence.

Defamation litigation is becoming more common in Canada, as consumers increasingly submit complaints via online reviews, said Jennifer Schulz, an associate dean and professor in the faculty of law at the University of Manitoba.

The success or failure of Greenwoods’ claim will likely be predicated on whether it can prove the defendant was acting out of malice or lying when she made the statement, Schulz said.

The most common legal defence in these scenarios is one of fair comment, which allows people to express opinions and speak in the public interest, Schulz said.

“If you get a bill of over $1,000 and you’re a student, that’s upsetting. That’s fair enough. The question is, though, did they actually misinform her?”– Jennifer Schulz, an associate dean and professor in the faculty of law at the University of Manitoba

“I think she, unfortunately for Greenwoods, has a good argument that she’s fairly providing comment,” Schulz said.

“If you get a bill of over $1,000 and you’re a student, that’s upsetting. That’s fair enough. The question is, though, did they actually misinform her?”

Speaking generally, Schulz said businesses sometimes launch defamation lawsuits to scare defendants into removing unfavourable reviews. In those cases, the plaintiffs are more concerned about “righting the reputational wrong” than winning a financial settlement in court.

“Sometimes people do (submit a review) maliciously and not based on the truth, and that’s obviously a problem for the business owner,” she said.

In this case, “We don’t actually know whether this is true or false,” Schulz said.

She suggested the suit could be settled through mediation, which would save time and money, and not burden the court system.

Formed in Winnipeg in 2004, Greenwoods operates five dental centres in Winnipeg and two in British Columbia.

In 2021, the clinic sued a patient after she posted a review on its Facebook page claiming she developed a serious infection after staff used “dirty instruments” during a root canal and had to be hospitalized. Greenwoods accused the woman of defamation and sought an injunction to have the post removed. The status of that lawsuit was unclear Monday.

The Free Press requested comment from the Greenwoods legal team Monday, but did not receive a response before print deadline.

tyler.searle@freepress.mb.ca