"I would advise you to be careful what accusations you make in writing as you could be sued for libel"
How about qualifying your threat that you can be sued for libel, instead of fear mongering, here are some facts on libel:
What is libel (defamation)?
Libel is the type of defamation with a permanent record, like a newspaper, a letter, a website posting, an email, a picture, or a radio or TV broadcast. If you can prove that someone libeled you, and that person does not have a good defence such as 'the truth being told' or priviledge such as in parliament. There are other defences that can be used but it seems in this Bella Management case, the truth is a defence for these folks if they were ever sued for libel. And you should know that suing for Libel can only occur in the Supreme Court not a provincial court. Supreme Court cases are very expensive for the litigator and accused but I would say more so for the litigator.
If the court has determined defamation then damages can be awarded but only if their professional reputation was at stake not their personal. And in these cases, again if the 'truth' or justification was spoken or written then that it is a defence that can be used and the litigator does not have a case. As for showing 'the truth' -- it is in the mind of the person as to what the truth is and what they believe happened to them. If they are speaking and writing from their own personal experiences and they believed that is what happened to them and it is truthful then too bad for the person whose feelings and reputation got hurt.
The law doesn't protect you from a personal insult or a remark that injures only your pride; it protects reputation, not feelings. So if someone calls you a lazy slob, you might be hurt, but you probably don't have a good reason to sue. If he goes on to say you cheat in your business dealings, you probably do have a good reason to sue, as long as he says it to someone else, not just to you. If he says it only to you, you can't sue because he has not hurt your reputation.
At common law, defamation covers any communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public. Probably true statements are not excluded, nor are political opinions. Intent is always presumed, and it is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to defame. In Hill v. Scientology Church of Toronto (1995), the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the actual malice test adopted in the US case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Once a claim has been made, the defendant may avail themselves to a defense of justification (the truth), fair comment, responsible communication, or privilege. Publishers of defamatory comments may also use the defense of innocent dissemination where they had no knowledge of the nature of the statement, it was not brought to their attention, and they were not negligent.