A Winnipeg dental clinic led by several negative online reviews is now demanding the man behind the defamation positions.
The Dental Clinic says that the man published “false, inaccurate, misleading and defamatory” information about the clinic in a series of online reviews earlier this summer, according to the claim statement presented at the Bank of the Manitoba Court of the King’s Bench on July 29.
The man published his reviews on several websites: Facebook, Google, Yelp and Better Business Bureau, in early July, detailing his “terrible experience” in the dental clinic of the center, where he said it was at the end of June at the end of June, according to the demand.
In his review, the man said that a dentist at the clinic was not equipped to provide oral sedation. He also claimed to have accidentally started new points of his mouth while trying to replace the gauze after the appointment, says the demand.
“Go look for a homeless individual in a rear alley, give them $ 50 and tell them what teeth you need. It will hurt less in the long term!” The initial review of the man said that it is cited in the demand.
A clinic spokesman declined to comment on the lawsuit, since the matter is before the courts.
However, in an email to CBC News, the spokesman said that he appreciates criticism because he helps the clinic to improve its services.
“That said, this does not give people the right to publicly declare inaccurate, false or defamatory statements. Doing doing can be harmful to the reputation of a company, is a coward and is against the law,” said the spokesman.
Damages
The clinic is seeking general, special and punitive damage against man, as well as precautionary measures that order the man who eliminates any online defamatory material that involves the clinic and does not publish more in the future, according to demand.
The clinic offered the man an apology and the opportunity to return to the clinic to speak with the dentist who extracted the tooth, but refused both, demanding a reimbursement of the clinic through its management and the Dental Association of Manitoba, says the demand.
Since then, the man has eliminated his review of the clinic on Google, but the other three revisions remain online, says the demand.
Man’s positions were destined to recover the dental rates that he paid to the clinic, to question the integrity and reputation of the clinic, and damage his profits, says the demand.
The clinic states that man’s positions have and continue to cause damage to their reputation and businesses.
None of the accusations has been tested in court. A defense statement has not yet been submitted.
