Drag Queens Celebrate Victory in Years-Long $380K Libel Case

Thunder Bay Judge Orders $380K in Damages Over Anti-Drag Libel Case

THUNDER BAY — A Thunder Bay judge has ruled that the individual behind the Real Thunder Bay Courthouse – Inside Edition Facebook page is liable for $380,000 in damages after being successfully sued for defamatory posts targeting drag performers.

Justice Helen Pearce’s summary judgment stems from two separate but related civil cases against Brian Webster. The lawsuits were filed by Rainbow Alliance Dryden and Dryden-based drag performer Caitlin Hartlen, as well as Thunder Bay drag queens Felicia Crichton and John Forget.

The plaintiffs argued that Webster defamed them by labeling them as “groomers” and accusing them of “grooming” children—claims that effectively likened them to pedophiles. The posts, made in 2022, were in response to news coverage and promotion of drag queen story time events in Dryden and Thunder Bay. In one particularly egregious post from December 2022, Webster falsely alleged that local drag queens, who were not involved in the event, had been charged with child pornography.

For Forget, the court’s decision was overwhelming.

“I just cried,” he said. “I was actually on my way into the grocery store when I checked my phone. We have a group chat, and all I saw was ‘We won.’ I was overcome with emotion.”

Crichton echoed the sentiment, saying the ruling brought a sense of relief after a long struggle.

“It can feel like you’re really alone for a long time, even though we know our community supports us,” she said. “To see the good guys win, even just once, was a light in the dark.”

In her 56-page ruling issued in late January, Pearce awarded each plaintiff $75,000 in general damages and $20,000 in aggravated damages—the full amount they sought. The judge found that Webster deliberately attempted to tarnish the reputations of the plaintiffs and Rainbow Alliance Dryden by suggesting they used their drag personas to groom children.

“There could hardly be a more damning message than that, spread across the Internet,” Pearce wrote. “The message was clearly understood by Mr. Webster’s readership: he called the plaintiffs pedophiles.”

The judge dismissed Webster’s defense, which argued that his posts were not directed at the specific plaintiffs. She ruled that they were indeed identifiable in the content and that the statements were defamatory. His defense of fair comment was also rejected. Previously, Webster had attempted to have the case dismissed under anti-SLAPP (strategic litigation against public participation) laws, but that effort was unsuccessful.

Pearce further characterized Webster’s conduct as “hate speech.”

For Forget, the experience resurfaced old memories of being bullied, but he found strength in the support from his legal team and community.

Both Crichton and Forget said the ruling has reinforced their sense of safety and faith in the justice system.

“Even in Canada, where we pride ourselves on being progressive, minority communities can still be marginalized,” Crichton said. “But to see the legal system take a stand against this kind of hate speech is everything we could have hoped for.”