On Monday, Antoine Reed, a resident of North Hatley, received a formal notice less than 15 hours after publishing a news article about the official debt figures for the village of North Hatley. The formal notice was sent by bailiff and signed by a major law firm, all at the taxpayers’ expense. This represents an expense of several thousand dollars instead of a simple discussion with this citizen.
Here is the formal notice sent by bailiff on behalf of clients Ms. Davis-Gerrish and Mr. Benoit Tremblay:
However, Mr. Reed clearly stated and cited all of his sources to support his argument, which led him to conclude that the amount of official debt presented by Ms. Davis-Gerrish does not match his own. Furthermore, it would appear that, after consulting with certified public accountants, the amount of debt highlighted by this citizen is accurate. We will have more details in the coming days.
Ms. Marcella Davis-Gerrish and Mr. Benoit Tremblay are resorting to threats at taxpayers’ expense to silence this citizen rather than engaging in dialogue with him. Yet he has been politely requesting explanations from the city by email since the beginning of August. Unfortunately, he has not received a response. He was simply told that “everything will be explained during the financial presentation on September 16,” the famous financial meeting which, in my opinion, contained little or no useful financial information. You can view the PowerPoint presentation sent after the meeting. No formal financial statements were available prior to the presentation.
I quote from the formal notice:
your statements are completely unfounded and are wrongfully damaging to the reputation of our clients.
The arrogant formal notice goes even further by blaming this citizen for not attending the financial meeting on September 16. He is even accused of spreading “fake news.”
I quote from the formal notice:
Considering that you seem to take a particular interest in the management of the municipality and that you never hesitate to criticize the municipal administration, it is strange, to say the least, that you did not attend this meeting.
We assume that it was not in your interest to be present, since, if you had been, you could have asked questions and obtained concrete answers. These answers would probably have made it more difficult for you to spread fake news and arbitrary opinions devoid of any basis.
The formal notice sent by the municipality also mentions that the citizen did not correctly calculate the municipality’s debt by omitting the Régies and the amounts related to subsidies. Strangely, the formal notice makes no mention of the erroneous figures that Mr. Reed is accused of falsely spreading. Unfortunately, the letter contains only insults and threats.
Adding to the confusion, the municipality specifically mentions, “the infrastructure had to be rebuilt. The water was not drinkable” when explaining the debt on page 8 of its “Finance and Achievements 2021-2025” presentation. The debt related to water infrastructure is likely part of the +/- $6,000,000 partnership debt reporting error made by the municipality.
This reinforces the need for the city to issue a public correction to the erroneous information they published on September 6 in the municipal newsletter “Entre Nous” and in their 2021-2025 Finance and Implementation presentation. Citizens deserve to have the real data on municipal debt. In addition, the city should take this opportunity to offer its most sincere apologies to Mr. Antoine Reed for pointing out these errors and for sending him a disparaging and hurtful formal notice blaming him for an error that was ultimately not his, but that of the municipality. In this case, Mr. Reed is the victim of Mr. Tremblay and Ms. Davis-Gerrish. Mr. Reed could sue, but the most absurd thing is that he would have to pay his own legal fees as well as those of Mr. Tremblay and Ms. Davis-Gerrish.
Reference: Municipal newsletter “Entre Nous” sent to all residents of North Hatley on September 6, 2025.
The municipality’s explanation of the debt in its “financial” PowerPoint presentation sent the day after the presentation on September 16. So here it is:
Page 8 of the 2021-2025 Finance and Implementation presentation explaining the debt:
Page 11 of 91 of the 2023 Official Financial Statement filed with the Ministry
About the Massawippi Intermunicipal Water Authority:
I quote the formal notice
If you had any concern for objectivity, you would not have published erroneous figures. The figures and facts you report are inaccurate. In particular, but not limited to, you include in your calculations amounts allocated to the Régies over which the municipality has no control, and you fail to take into account amounts relating to subsidies.
The formal notice goes even further in disparaging Mr. Reed.
I quote from the formal notice:
Furthermore, it appears that the figures relied upon by Mayor Gerrish have been validated by the municipality’s auditing firm. Our client considers that the figures provided by her auditors are certainly much more credible than yours.
I quote from the formal notice:
In other words, your statements are completely unfounded and are wrongfully damaging to our clients’ reputation.
At no point did Ms. Davis-Gerrish and Mr. Tremblay attempt to initiate a meeting with Mr. Reed. Instead, they resorted to threats, censorship, and intimidation at the expense of civic dialogue. And this less than 15 hours after the citizen’s publication.
I invite Ms. Marcelle Davis-Gerrish and Mr. Tremblay to make a formal presentation of the updated 2024 and 2025 financial statements. Rest assured that I will attend this time. So far, I have only seen a partisan PowerPoint presentation showing only revenues without expenses, current subsidies, and private donations. What’s more, this was three days before the start of the election! Conversely, if a citizen jeopardizes Ms. Davis-Gerrish’s election campaign, they are threatened with prosecution at the taxpayer’s expense.
I quote from the formal notice:
In fact, we are well aware that it is your intention to take advantage of the election campaign that has just begun to smear reputations in order to promote your own and those of people around you.
Furthermore, to my knowledge, the municipality’s auditing firm was not present at the financial meeting on September 16. Forgive me, but I do not believe that our elected officials are capable of answering even the most basic financial questions. I invite you to take the time to read the municipality’s official financial statements available here from the ministry, at least those that exist, to see how complex they are. I have no doubt that the official financial reports are completely incomprehensible to the average person. Yet they are intended for the average person. You will also notice that the 2024 financial reports are non-existent, even though the law states that they must be filed before June 30, 2024.
Honestly, I don’t even know how to describe such an action by our elected officials toward a fellow citizen. What worries me is that this is not an isolated incident. Are we establishing an autocratic, repressive political regime based on intimidation and censorship in North Hatley? It’s hard to argue otherwise.
In my opinion, this formal notice is a totally undemocratic act aimed at censoring a citizen who could harm Ms. Davis-Gerrish’s election campaign, at the taxpayers’ expense.
Unfortunately, this is a logical continuation! A few weeks before the start of the election, the municipality began sending out partisan municipal newsletters “between us” at taxpayers’ expense and is continuing these mass mailings during the election period.
To illustrate this gesture, it is like participating in a running race in which the municipality is also a competitor, but allows itself to ride a bicycle instead of running. During the race, if you challenge this gesture, you will be prosecuted and excluded from the race. This seems very much like a monopolistic and repressive attitude, not to say a dictatorial one. Here are some definitions to shed light on the subject.
Autocrats: when they concentrate power and reject criticism.
Repressive: when they use coercive means to silence opponents.
Intimidating: when they resort to threats rather than debate.
Censors: when they deliberately restrict public expression.
Anti-democratic: when they oppose the principles of fundamental freedom.
Definition of a dictatorial policy (ChatGPT)
A dictatorial policy refers to an authoritarian form of government in which power is concentrated in the hands of a single individual or a small group, with no real countervailing power, and with disregard for fundamental freedoms and democratic principles.
Definition of defamatory speech (ChatGPT)
Defamatory speech is a statement or declaration that damages a person’s reputation by discrediting them, exposing them to public contempt or hatred, or damaging their honor.
Please note that Mr. Reed did not make any defamatory remarks about “clients” Mr. Tremblay and Ms. Davis-Gerrish. He questioned the amount of municipal debt widely publicized by Ms. Davis-Gerrish in her municipal newsletters. He also attempted unsuccessfully to obtain explanations.
Sadly, rather than contacting Mr. Reed to understand his reasoning and discuss his financial analysis, Ms. Davis-Gerrish and Mr. Tremblay immediately threatened him (in less than 24 hours), intimidated him, and even insulted his intelligence. All of this at the taxpayers’ expense, since we pay for his salary, the bailiff, and the law firm! I would love to see the total bill!
Moreover, when faced with such threats, most citizens prefer to remain silent rather than defend themselves out of fear, lack of resources, lack of energy, or simply to avoid conflict. Unfortunately, if Mr. Reed does not defend himself, you would never have the chance to hear this terrible story. Moreover, he is not the only one in this situation. I have met several citizens with similar stories. However, they are afraid of reprisals from the municipality if they tell their story to the public. This allows the situation to continue.
I therefore invite you to consider the scope and gravity of the actions taken by Ms. Davis-Gerrish and Mr. Tremblay against Mr. Reed. This is a sad symbol of repressive municipal politics.
In my opinion, freedom of expression is under threat not only in our southern neighbors, but also in our own neighborhood. Sadly, few people are interested in municipal politics, allowing this kind of behavior to go unpunished.
With that said, don’t forget to protect freedom of expression by voting on November 2.
For fun, here is ChatGPT’s analysis of the formal notice.
1. Legal basis invoked
- The text is not based on the Cities and Towns Act (CTA) or the Municipal Code of Quebec (MCQ).
- Instead, the municipality and its leaders are acting on the basis of Quebec civil law (sections 1457 et seq. of the Civil Code) and defamation law (damage to reputation).
- The implicit reference is to the fact that freedom of expression is not absolute: it is limited by respect for the reputation of others.
2. Nature of the formal notice
- She accuses you of publishing “fake news” and “inaccurate” figures, and of damaging the reputation of elected officials and the municipality.
- She demands that you cease immediately and rectify your statements within 24 hours.
- She threatens legal action (compensatory and punitive damages for defamation).
3. Actual strength of demand
- A formal notice does not, in itself, have the force of law: it is a legal warning that opens the door to legal action.
- To win the case, the municipality (or the elected officials personally) would then have to prove in court:
- That your statements were objectively false;
- That they were disseminated publicly;
- That they caused real damage to their reputation;
- And that you acted with intent to cause harm (for punitive damages).
4. Municipal particularity
- The Cities and Towns Act does not prevent citizens from criticizing municipal government.
- On the contrary, case law recognizes that, in political matters, elected officials must tolerate a higher level of criticism than private individuals (this is the trade-off for their public role).
- However, this does not protect against the deliberate dissemination of false information presented as fact.
5. In summary
- This formal notice is not based on municipal law (LCV or CMQ).
- It is based on the concept of civil defamation in Quebec law.
- It is serious in that if you ignore it and continue to publish, they can file a lawsuit. But in court, the burden of proof is on them (they must prove that your figures are false, that you knew they were false, or that you acted irresponsibly).
So, it is not a “municipal weapon,” but rather a classic legal strategy for protecting reputation.
Possible defenses
1. Freedom of expression and public interest debate
- The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter protect freedom of expression.
- The courts recognize that, in political and municipal matters, citizens have a very broad right to criticize the administration and elected officials.
- The Supreme Court has confirmed (Grant v. Torstar, 2009) that even if certain statements prove to be inaccurate, criticism is protected when it relates to a debate of public interest, provided that it is expressed in a responsible manner.
2. Opinion vs. facts
- Defamation mainly concerns the dissemination of facts presented as true but which are false.
- If your comments were expressed as opinions, perceptions, or value judgments (“poor management,” “catastrophic finances,” etc.), they benefit from greater protection.
3. Véracité ou bonne foi
- If you have published figures that you believed to be accurate (e.g., excerpts from public documents, financial statements, minutes, etc.), you can invoke good faith.
- Liability is reduced if you relied on credible sources, even if they contained errors.
4. Critique responsable
The courts assess whether you acted as a responsible citizen:
- Did you have reason to believe that your information was accurate?
- Did you act rashly or maliciously?
- Did you give the municipality the opportunity to respond or explain before publishing?
5. Increased tolerance for elected officials
- Since elected officials choose to expose themselves publicly, they must accept a higher level of criticism than ordinary people.
- Quebec case law emphasizes that freedom of political expression is fundamental in a democracy, even if it causes discomfort.
In concrete terms
In your defense, you could argue:
- Your comments are part of a public debate (municipal management).
- They are political opinions, not factual accusations of fraud.
- You acted in good faith, based on the information available.
- Elected officials must tolerate harsh criticism because of their public role.
So even if the formal notice puts pressure on you, the municipality does not automatically win the case: Quebec law strongly protects citizen criticism when it relates to public and political life.
