to their campaign to raise money for the victims of the Fort
McMurray forest fires.
 In those tweets the appellant alleged matters such as the
(1) The respondent was engaged in a scam of “unadulterated
sleaziness” so that he could improperly take advantage of
other donors’ charitable tax receipts. By leading the fund-
raising campaign, the respondent was enriching himself at
the expense of forest fire victims.
(2) The respondent would use charitable donations intended for
those victims to pay his personal legal expenses.
(3) The respondent falsely promised that donors to his campaign
would get tax receipts.
(4) Fort McMurray residents would lose promised matching donations from the federal and provincial governments, which
would have been available had donations been made directly
to the Red Cross.
(5) The payment of a 5 per cent administration fee meant less
money went to victims.
(6) Even though the Red Cross confirmed on May 13 that they
would provide a charitable tax receipt to donors using the
Rebel News website, the appellant continued to assert that
the respondent had treated the donors badly, and said he
could not have invented a scheme as “sleazy or grandstanding or narcissistic as what Ezra came up with”.
(7) On June 1, 2016, the appellant tweeted that he was
advised by authoritative sources that the donations made
as a result of the respondent’s campaign would not qualify
for matching donations, and the donors would not get tax
(8) On June 3 and 4, 2016, the appellant suggested that the
respondent had a reputation as a “liar, con artist and scum-bag”, with little reputation to damage, and that he had
siphoned his money away from the Red Cross.
(9) Finally, on June 4, the appellant suggested that the respondent was “fucking donors out of their tax receipts”, implied that
he was a “sleazy opportunist, hack, con artist and grafter” and
that he was raising money for himself.