SNAILS DJ AllegationsCourt Findings · Complete Legal Record

The judgment was not awarded by default but by Summary Judgment. Summary judgment requires the court to thoroughly review all submitted evidence — unlike a default judgment, which is issued when a party fails to respond entirely.

Higgins did respond by filing a Statement of Defense. She appeared at a case management hearing before Justice Harris in August 2023. She was given every opportunity, including virtual attendance, to participate.

However, once receiving my evidence, she chose to disengage completely:

• Failing to provide any counter-evidence to support her claims
• Ignoring opportunities to participate in discovery
• Refusing to submit cross-examination affidavits
• Not attending the December 8, 2023 final hearing despite Webex links being sent to her

This was not a libel tourism lawsuit. Justice Devlin explicitly addressed and rejected this argument in the official judgment.

I did not choose Canada as the forum. Higgins chose Alberta through her own actions — she specifically and repeatedly tagged Edmonton and Calgary promoters in her posts, causing two of my scheduled performances to be cancelled. She created the jurisdiction herself.

Jurisdiction is determined by where the harm occurred. The defamatory posts from the Instagram Account were directly read and acted upon by concert promoters in Alberta, who then cancelled my shows. The tort of defamation was committed in Alberta — where it was read and where its effects were felt.

Higgins had multiple opportunities to formally challenge jurisdiction but chose not to. Justice Harris set a deadline for her to file a motion challenging jurisdiction — she never did.

No. Higgins was not required to have a lawyer. Her only requirement was to submit her evidence. She repeatedly claimed she could not afford Canadian legal representation but never submitted any evidence to prove her lack of financial means. The court explicitly addressed and rejected this argument.

Higgins stated she would proceed self-represented (pro se). Her later decision to not engage contradicted her own commitment to participate.

The court ruled in my favor because the evidence overwhelmingly supported my case and Higgins provided zero counter-evidence. Justice Devlin found that Higgins repeatedly defamed me by reposting allegations that I was guilty of criminal and immoral activity, without legal justification or basis for doing so.

None of the available legal defences applied — no defence of truth, no fair comment, no qualified privilege, and no responsible communication. Malice defeated all remaining defences.

No. The court transcript shows Justice Harris recommended Higgins seek legal advice — nothing more. The court never told her she could not proceed without a lawyer. The court explicitly made accommodations for her to appear remotely and participate without counsel.

This is a recommendation, not a prohibition. My lawyer confirmed in writing to the court that Justice Harris did not relieve Higgins from any procedural deadlines because she did not have a lawyer, and that there was no basis for her claim that the court excused her from participating without legal representation.

This is false. I wanted to go into discovery because I had all the evidence needed to debunk her claims. The court record shows I submitted approximately 700–800 pages of evidence across ten detailed affidavits.

Higgins received the full evidence binder and publicly mocked it on social media — calling it "a waste of paper." She then submitted zero pages of her own evidence and refused to cross-examine any of my affidavits.

I filed ten affidavits addressing each allegation specifically. The court examined several in detail and found them false on the civil standard of proof. Here is what the judgment found on specific allegations:

Krysten (Philadelphia allegation): The alleged victim Krysten publicly refuted the allegation, stating it was false, offering to back Durand up, and confirming the encounter was consensual. Higgins posted the allegation anyway while omitting Krysten's public retraction from the same thread.

@MartinsTenille: The original poster publicly clarified her tweet was about a different DJ entirely — not Snails — tweeting "I've never met snails." Higgins posted the allegation anyway and omitted the clarification.

Caroline: The person who alleged assault had sent Durand sexually explicit messages and pursued him consensually through 2017. The court found the private messages wholly inconsistent with the allegation.

Shelby: Dated text messages from Shelby thanked Durand for "the fun" and invited future meetups. Her own public tweet at the time praised the interaction.

Kasey Connelly's false social media allegations debunked by her own posts and messages

Kasey Connelly (@kaseycon / @harlequinof8): Her public story changed repeatedly and directly contradicted itself. In public posts, she wrote, "Fred assaulted me." She also wrote, "I wasn't raped," and said Durand "wasn't aggressive."

She also claimed Durand took her phone and that they communicated only through Snapchat. The dated iMessages reproduced in Durand's 2022 public statement contradict both claims. They show her using her phone to arrange the meeting, messaging him throughout the night, and writing afterward, "Thank you so much for having me last night."

Durand's 2022 public statement reproduces these social posts and iMessages side by side. Read the SNAILS public statement about the Kasey Connelly allegations (PDF).

In many cases, it is challenging for women to come forward and be believed. However, in this case, alleged victims came forward to contradict and correct the accusations. Women identified in the allegations offered to testify for me in court. Some of those Higgins branded as "victims" confirmed the encounters were consensual or had never happened at all.

A specific example from the official judgment: a woman whose tweet was reposted by Higgins as an allegation against SNAILS publicly clarified it was about a different DJ entirely. Higgins kept the post up and omitted the clarification. Justice Devlin called this the "epitome of malicious conduct."

Higgins claimed repeatedly to have evidence and witnesses. She threatened to post additional allegations and produce witnesses if the lawsuit continued. When the time came — she produced nothing.

Not one person came forward to provide credible evidence supporting any allegation against me in court. The court noted that Higgins had the right to cross-examine my affidavits and the right to file her own evidence — and exercised neither right.

There were no genuine accusers to begin with. Anyone that came forward or was named in the allegations either supported my version of events, disproved their own allegations, admitted having no connection to me, or could not be identified at all due to anonymity.

The court's repetition rule is clear on this point: every person who reposts a defamatory statement is liable to the same extent as the person who originally published it. Higgins amplified, organized, and broadcast these allegations to the public — that is actionable regardless of who originally posted them.

After filing her defense, Higgins asked multiple times to settle. I considered it with one condition: that she publicly admit her posts were unverified and false and issue an apology. She never agreed to it.

She later threatened that if I didn't settle, she would use a "legal team comprised of multiple law firms who will all represent her pro bono" in California. When the case proceeded, that legal team never appeared. She defended herself — and then stopped defending at all.

Higgins was involved in every stage of the process. After repeatedly stating she was "never backing down," she walked away entirely once she received all of my evidence. Her claim that the "judgment doesn't affect her" is a deflection from the truth that a judge found she was wrong to purposely spread misinformation about an innocent person.

Higgins publicly stated she was protected by the First Amendment and California's anti-SLAPP law. Justice Devlin directly addressed this and rejected it.

Even applying the US standard — the New York Times "actual malice" test — Higgins still loses. The court found she acted with reckless disregard for the truth, which meets that very standard. Her malice defeats all defences under both Canadian and American law.

Even though Higgins chose not to defend her claims further, I still had to prove the publications were defamatory and establish malice. I submitted evidence addressing the individual allegations, and the judge ruled in my favor on the strength of that record, not on Higgins' absence alone.

You don't get to escape accountability by running away from the truth.

Under Canadian law, defamatory words are presumed false. I did not need to prove falseness to win. I nevertheless submitted evidence addressing individual allegations. The judgment identified a demonstrably false attack, found other claims contradicted by dated records, and stated that I had cleared my name to a surprising extent.

Around 2017–2020 some rumors circulated — and were publicly debunked or came out as fabricated. I didn't address them because they had already been addressed.

In June 2020, Higgins launched her Instagram page, gathering and republishing those previously debunked claims as a coordinated campaign. Following this, in January 2021 I released two public statements addressing the allegations, re-presented the evidence, and had individuals involved directly confirm the claims were untrue.

Higgins completely ignored the statements and continued her campaign. Legal action became the only option to set the record straight.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but opinions do not override the court record. The Alberta Court of King's Bench made explicit findings of falsity, including an intentionally, demonstrably false attack, and found many allegations, including the most serious, likely false or unreliable. I encourage readers to review Durand v Higgins, 2024 ABKB 108 on CanLII.

If anyone genuinely believes they have been wronged by my actions, I encourage you to come forward through proper legal channels. For any claim to hold weight, it needs to be based on evidence.

No accuser came forward to substantiate any anonymous, second-hand, or third-hand account allegation. The absence of a real accuser or direct testimony made it clear that these were unfounded claims. The court noted the frequent anonymity of the mostly second and third-hand statements that formed the basis of the Instagram Account's campaign.

The volume of Higgins' reposts is not evidence of truth — it is evidence of how widely she broadcast unverified, anonymous, second-hand content. Her reposts included allegations about other artists misidentified as being about me, personal opinions about my music, and claims that were publicly retracted by the original posters.

To address the allegations, I submitted 10 affidavits, which were sworn written statements supported by dated records. The judgment states that this evidence cleared my name to a surprising extent and records specific findings of falsity.

This was never about financial gain. It was about clearing my name and stopping the spread of false allegations. The $1.5 million judgment reflects the documented, quantified damage done to my career by Higgins' campaign — not an arbitrary number.

A permanent injunction was also part of the relief sought — and granted. The goal was always to stop the campaign, not to profit from it.

There is no such thing as buying a win in a Canadian court. The Court of King's Bench of Alberta applied a rigorous legal standard. Justice Devlin reviewed 10 affidavits, examined specific allegations against documented evidence, applied the full framework of defamation law, and wrote a 29-page reasoned judgment.

Higgins had the same access to the process. She filed a Statement of Defence, appeared at a pre-hearing, received all my evidence, and was offered virtual attendance at the final hearing. She chose to disengage at every stage after seeing the evidence.

Anyone can file a lawsuit — but winning requires proof. The court applied the full test for summary judgment under the Weir-Jones framework, requiring a thorough review of the record and confidence that the result is fair and just. Courts do not grant $1.5 million defamation judgments on paperwork alone.

If my claims had no merit, Justice Devlin would have dismissed the case entirely. He didn’t.

Malice in defamation law means the publisher acted with reckless indifference to the truth, spite or ill-will, or an ulterior purpose to harm — going beyond honest but careless belief. Justice Devlin found all three present.

Enforcement does not change the judgment. The court made explicit findings that specific allegations were false, found many allegations, including the most serious, likely false or unreliable, and permanently enjoined Higgins from publishing sexual-misconduct allegations about Durand. Those findings remain part of the public record.

I want to thank those of you who made it this far. I hope this brings clarity to those who had questions about the SNAILS allegations.

To this day, I still receive messages about Higgins' misleading claims. It is important to stay vigilant against ongoing attempts to twist the narrative and mislead the public. The official judgment — Durand v Higgins, 2024 ABKB 108 — is publicly available on CanLII for anyone who wants to read it in full.

Reflecting on these past few years, I realize that putting myself in environments where drinking and partying were involved led to misperceptions about me and my true values as a person. I can't change the past and understand the negative impression some may still have from my early days as a DJ. Since then, I've made significant changes to my life. I've chosen sobriety and am dedicated to maintaining a positive and respectful environment for those I interact with.

I want to make it clear that I stand with survivors of assault. The MeToo movement has served a long overdue purpose in bringing justice. For any accusation to serve justice, however, it must be grounded in truth and fairness to both the accuser and the accused — as Justice Devlin himself stated in his concluding observations.

A huge thank you to my girlfriend who has been by my side throughout this whole period, and to my mother who has been pushing me to never stop fighting for justice. And to all my fans who always had my back — I wouldn't have been able to get through this without any of you.

— Frederik Durand (SNAILS)