What the appeal is about
Leroux is appealing a Saskatchewan Court of King's Bench decision that ordered him to pay University of Regina associate professor Michelle Coupal $70,000. Coupal holds the Canada Research Chair in Truth, Reconciliation and Indigenous Literatures at the University of Regina. Justice Daryl Labach of the Court of King's Bench in Regina ruled in Coupal's favour in March 2026.
The case centres on Coupal's claim to Algonquin heritage through an ancestor named Thomas Lagarde. A 2023 tribunal finding determined that Lagarde was not Algonquin. Leroux made social media posts claiming Coupal's heritage claim was based on "family lore and forged documents," and he posted that she was "pretending to be Indigenous," linking to a news story. One of the statements found defamatory was delivered in a public presentation to the Robinson-Huron Waawiindamaagewin Treaty Governance Forum in February 2022.
Inside the hearing
A three-judge panel, Justices Meghan McCreary, Jillyne Drennan and Naheed Bardai, heard and questioned arguments from both parties for more than two and a half hours before reserving its decision.
Leroux is represented by lawyer Paul Champ, while Coupal is represented by lawyer Paul Harasen. Champ argued that questioning someone's Indigenous identity claims should not automatically be treated as defamatory, asking the panel: "If there's other people who are claiming Indigenous identity, are people going to be afraid of questioning it?"
Harasen countered that there is a meaningful distinction between disputing whether someone is Indigenous and accusing them of fraud or dishonesty. "There is a fundamental difference between claiming she's not Indigenous and finding that she committed fraud or was dishonest," he told the court.
The legal test at the centre of it
In his March 2026 ruling, Justice Labach found that truth is a complete defence to defamation only if the defendant shows the statements were substantially true, not merely that he believed them to be true. That distinction, between honest belief and provable fact, is now what the appeal panel has to weigh as it decides whether the original judgment stands.
Why it matters in Ottawa
The panel's reserved decision means there's no timeline yet for a ruling, but the outcome will shape how far academics can go in publicly disputing a colleague's identity claims without facing a defamation judgment themselves.
Sources: 620 CKRM (Harvard Media), GX94 Radio (Harvard Media)
