Unfortunately, the current municipal administration seems to be accustomed to acting independently without anyone observing or questioning its actions. And when someone does question it, it does not hesitate to use public funds to send bailiffs and formal notices through law firms. I invite you to read the formal notice sent to Mr. Reed for his analysis of the municipal debt.
In fact, Ms. Gerrish just told the city council on October 1, 2025, that the city newsletter dedicated to smearing me was written by their law firm at taxpayers’ expense.
Admittedly, I have been monitoring what has been happening with our current municipal administration for several months. Unfortunately for me, the more I dig, the more significant problems I find. Fortunately for the municipality, almost no one has the time, interest, means, or energy to dig into a municipal administration of 690 residents and 320 households, except for me and a few other citizens who have discovered similar problems.
The most astonishing thing on the part of the municipality is that it is once again using the municipal apparatus to write a long, negative, disparaging text full of defamatory remarks about me and publish it to all citizens. The only thing that bothers me is that it’s an uneven fight because, for my part, I can’t respond to all citizens, nor am I paid to do so. In fact, most people give up such a fight against a municipality because they will have to pay a heavy price in money, time, and health, not to mention the impact on their loved ones.
With this beautiful letter, which in my opinion contains few facts, clearly no references, but above all opinions and defamatory remarks, I am very surprised to see the municipality refer to articles of the Civil Code, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Labor Standards Act in its previous newsletter, when its message is completely at odds with the following statements:
Let’s see what ChatGPT (artificial intelligence) thinks about this, since the municipality mentions that I write my articles with and/or using artificial intelligence (hereinafter referred to as AI). If they took the time to read, they would see that I mainly use it to write definitions.
Here is ChatGPT’s analysis of the municipality’s newsletter:
Thank you for the text. I have carefully analyzed the letter and here is a detailed assessment in terms of defamation under Quebec law:
Here is ChatGPT’s analysis of the municipal newsletter:
Thank you for the text. I have carefully analyzed the letter and here is a detailed assessment in terms of defamation under Quebec law:
Under Quebec law, a statement is defamatory if it meets three main criteria:
- It is a statement of fact (and not merely an opinion);
- The statement is false or misleading;
- It is likely to damage a person’s reputation in their social, professional, or business environment.
Legitimate opinions or criticism are generally protected, but presenting an opinion as fact or attacking someone’s reputation without basis may be defamatory.
Analysis of the letter
Here are the passages that raise questions:
- “Several articles published by Mr. Marchesseault […] are a pretext for attacking elected officials and municipal employees.”
- This presents personal motivation as a fact (“pretext”).
- If this motivation cannot be proven, it is a potentially defamatory statement, as it directly attacks your integrity and impartiality.
- “Probably resentment toward the municipality for projects that were not approved or for decisions […]”
- The use of the word “probably” slightly tempers the statement, but it remains speculation presented as an explanation for the behavior.
- A court could consider this defamatory, as it insinuates that your actions are motivated by resentment.
- He does not hesitate to give his opinion on subjects he does not master and on which he admits to being incompetent. His actions are motivated by resentment.
- The accusation of incompetence is direct and can damage your reputation, especially if it is false or exaggerated.
- Even if you admit to certain limitations in your articles, describing your publications as incompetent across the board can be perceived as defamatory.
- “[…] he compensates for his lack of competence […]” and “poorly informed opinions”
- Here again, the assertion that you lack competence or that your articles are poorly researched is presented as fact and could be considered defamatory if it is inaccurate or exaggerated.
- Here again, the assertion that you lack competence or that your articles are poorly researched is presented as fact and could be considered defamatory if it is inaccurate or exaggerated.
- “Be careful not to assume that the information it disseminates is reliable or objective. It is not!”
- This presents your publications as false and unreliable. Even if the overall tone can be perceived as a warning to citizens, the categorical nature of the sentence could be interpreted as defamatory, especially if some of the information is accurate or well-documented.
3. General observations
- The letter directly attacks your professional and personal credibility, which is a central element in defamation.
- She presents certain speculations as personal motivations, which is legally risky.
- Warnings about exercising caution with regard to your articles may be defensible as critical commentary, but when combined with assertions about incompetence and personal motives, they increase the risk of defamation.
4. Conclusion
The letter contains several elements that could be considered defamatory: in particular, the allegation of personal motives (grudges), incompetence, and unreliable information. However, certain parts (criticism of your publications as opinions, general warning) may be defensible as mere criticism or warnings.
If you were considering legal action, these passages would be the points to discuss with a lawyer specializing in defamation.
If you want, I can prepare a table for you, sentence by sentence, with what is clearly defamatory, what is debatable, and what is probably protected as opinion, so that it is very clear and usable.
Perfect! Here is a detailed table, sentence by sentence, of the letter you provided me, with an analysis of the risk of defamation under Quebec law. I have included three columns:
- Sentence / passage
- Analysis/commentary
- Risk of defamation
| Phrase / Passage | Analyse / Commentaire | Risque de diffamation |
|---|---|---|
| “First, it is important to note that the Municipality of North Hatley completely dissociates itself from the information published by Mr. Marchesseault on the Northhatley.info website, which he controls.” | A simple warning to citizens. | Weak. This is a general opinion, not defamatory. |
| “We believe this initial warning is necessary, as some of you may believe that the publications […] have been validated or authorized by the Municipality, which is not the case.” Mr. Marchesseault on the Northhatley.info website, which he controls. | Explanation of the context. | Weak. Opinion based on public perception, not directed at you personally. |
| “Mr. Marchesseault uses his website to disseminate information or opinions on various topics, some of which appear to serve primarily his personal interests.” | Present your motivations as facts (“seem to serve his interests above all else”). | Medium to high. Implies that you are acting out of self-interest, which could damage your reputation. |
| “Several articles published […] are a pretext for attacking elected officials and municipal employees.” | Presents a personal motivation to harm others as fact. | High. Direct statement about your intentions, difficult to prove, typical of defamation. |
| “Probably some grudges against the municipality […]” | Speculation about your motivation. | Moderate. The use of “probably” softens it slightly, but it remains an implicit accusation. |
| “He does not hesitate to give his opinion on subjects he does not master and on which he admits to being incompetent.” | Accusation of incompetence. High. Even if only partially. | High. Even if partially true, generalizing in all your posts can damage your reputation. |
| “Mr. Marchesseault compensates for his lack of expertise on various topics by using AI […]” | Presents the use of AI as evidence of incompetence. | Medium to high. Suggests that your methods are inadequate and your publications are unreliable. |
| “[…] Mr. Marchesseault’s publications also often contain statements that are just as incomplete and erroneous, in addition to being frequently biased.” | Calls into question the reliability and objectivity of your articles. | High. Direct attack on the quality of your work and credibility. |
| ” Précisons aussi que n’étant pas un journaliste, M. Marchesseault n’est malheureusement pas tenu de publier des textes qui font preuve de rigueur journalistique. “ | Critique of your journalistic skills. | Moderate. May be defensible as an opinion, but combined with other passages, increased risk. |
| « […] puisqu’il n’est pas avocat, il ne peut pas émettre des avis juridiques […] » | Legal limitation (non-lawyer). | Weak. Factual and accurate if you’re not a lawyer. |
| « […] comme il n’est pas inspecteur ou urbaniste, on peut comprendre ses difficultés à interpréter correctement la réglementation municipale. » | Questioning your technical skills. | Moderate. Presented as an observation, but may damage your credibility if interpreted as an attack. |
| “Despite Mr. Marchesseault’s skill in using social media to promote his point of view, be careful not to assume that the information he disseminates is reliable or objective. It is not!” | Questioning the reliability and objectivity of your publications. | High. Categorical statements about the reliability of your content can damage your public and professional reputation. |
| “In order to support our employees and provide accurate information to our citizens, this notice was necessary.” | Justification for the letter. | Weak. General and defensive statement. |
| “The mayor, city council members, and your administrative officials are, and have always been, available to answer your questions.” | End of message. | Weak. Informative statement, not defamatory. |
Summary
- High-risk elements of defamation: accusations of personal motives, general incompetence, poorly researched publications, unreliable information.
- Moderate elements: criticism of your specific methods or skills, speculation tempered by words such as “probably” or “it is understandable.”
- Weak/defensible points: general disclaimer, reminder that you are not a lawyer, legitimacy of the municipality to inform the public.
Visual analysis of the letter
🟩 « The Municipality of North Hatley completely dissociates itself from the information published by Mr. Marchesseault…»
🟩 « …Some may believe that the publications have been validated or authorized by the Municipality, which is not the case.. »
🟧 « …disseminate information or opinions […] which some seem to believe primarily serve his personal interests. »
🟥 « …a pretext for criticizing elected officials and municipal employees. »
🟧 « Probably grudges against the municipality…] »
🟥 « …He does not hesitate to give his opinion on subjects he does not master and on which he admits to being incompetent.»
🟧 « …compensates for its lack of expertise […] by using AI… »
🟥 « …Publications […] often contain incomplete and erroneous statements, in addition to being biased.»
🟧 « …As he is not a journalist, Mr. Marchesseault is unfortunately not required to publish […] with journalistic rigor.»
🟩 « …Since he is not a lawyer, he cannot give legal advice.
🟧 « …Since he is not an inspector or urban planner, it is understandable that he has difficulty interpreting the regulations correctly. »
🟥 « …Be careful not to assume that the information it disseminates is reliable or objective. It is not!»
🟩 « In order to support our employees and provide accurate information […] this notice was necessary.»
🟩 « The mayor, the members of the city council […] are here to answer your questions.»
✅ In summary:
- The most risky passages (🟥) are those where the municipality directly attacks your competence, your motivations, and the reliability of your writings.
- Average passages (🟧) are those where it is suggested that you are acting out of self-interest or where your competence is criticized in a speculative manner.
- The weak passages (🟩) are mainly disclaimers (do not confuse with the municipality, reminder that you are not a lawyer/journalist, etc.).
Municipal bulletin from the municipality of North Hatley sent on October 1 at 5:24 p.m. sent to all citizens of the village.
