|
|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Date: 20060111 Between: Edmund Hunter Newman, Charlotte Elizabeth Mary-Ann Harvey, Plaintiffs And: Susan Pearl Halstead, Telus Corporation, Shaw Communications Inc., Defendants And: British Columbia Teachers' Federation Defendant by Counterclaim
Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Dorgan Reasons for Judgment
INTRODUCTION [1] A defamation case, by its nature, requires the court to consider the values of acceptable social behaviour founded on respect for individual dignity and reputation, together with that of free speech, a cornerstone of which is fair comment. Added potential defences of justification, or truth, and/or qualified privilege may also pertain. [2] In this case of alleged defamation, nine of the plaintiffs are public school teachers, one of the plaintiffs is a retired school board trustee, and one is a parent whose children formerly attended public school. Two of the plaintiffs, Elizabeth Eakin and Andrew Chisholm, reside in Prince George and the plaintiff David Halme lives in the Cowichan Valley. The rest of the plaintiffs and the defendant all reside in the Comox/Courtenay area. [3] The defendant, Ms. Halstead, long involved in her community as a volunteer, has become focused on her concern that certain teachers, school board officials and parents involved in the education system have acted improperly. The defendant has posted her views, including very serious allegations of manifestly improper conduct, on Internet websites, chat rooms and via e-mail. Most of her allegations involve the plaintiffs. [4] For context, evidence was called regarding years of interaction, sometimes conflict, between Ms. Halstead and a number of people holding various positions within School District 71, the Comox Valley District (the "District"). The plaintiffs' claim is in relation to events alleged to have taken place within two years of the commencement of their action. THE ACTION [5] The plaintiffs commenced this action in January 2004. They seek damages, including punitive damages, and broad injunctive relief. In addition to Ms. Halstead, the plaintiffs named several Internet service providers and Internet website hosts. The plaintiffs discontinued against the other named defendants and proceeded solely against Ms. Halstead. [6] Ms. Halstead, then represented by counsel, filed a statement of defence in March 2004. In May 2004 she filed a counterclaim against the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation ("BCTF") alleging the organization is the force behind the plaintiffs’ action, and alleging it had committed the tort of maintenance or champerty. [7] In June 2004, counsel for Ms. Halstead advised plaintiffs’ counsel that the defendant intended to "walk away" from the litigation (including all pre-trial proceedings and the actual trial). While Ms. Halstead still had counsel, the plaintiffs obtained an order compelling Ms. Halstead to participate in examinations for discovery in August 2004. It appears that Ms. Halstead has represented herself from that point on. [8] Ms. Halstead was examined for discovery over the course of six days. In response to demands for pre-trial discovery, she produced over 6,000 pages of documents, many of which are exhibits in this trial. [9] Ms. Halstead chose not to participate in the trial of this matter. She did not appear on the first day of this trial, either personally or through an agent. The court was offered no explanation for her absence. [10] The plaintiffs applied pursuant to Rule 39(33) for an order that the trial proceed. While they were then in a position to take default judgment against Ms. Halstead, they instead pressed the court to try their case on its merits (with all the risks that entailed), to allow them the opportunity to prove that they were in fact the subject of defamatory statements made and published by the defendant. In making that ruling, I found as facts that Ms. Halstead knew the date and place of trial and that her absence was deliberate. I ordered that the trial would proceed, notwithstanding the absence of Ms. Halstead: Newman v. Halstead (3 February 2005), Nanaimo S040599 (B.C.S.C.) (unreported). [11] The Second Amended Statement of Claim (the "Amended Statement of Claim") cites over sixty allegedly defamatory statements which the plaintiffs say were published by Ms. Halstead. The plaintiffs allege that commencing in the summer of 2002, Ms. Halstead created two or more Internet "chat rooms" or "bulletin boards" through which she communicated with parents and others in the education system, and that in February 2003 she created a website named "GAFER", apparently an acronym for "Growing Advocacy for Education Reform". The plaintiffs allege that Ms. Halstead published defamatory statements over the Internet through these vehicles she created and operated. [12] Ms. Halstead writes e-mail prodigiously. Some of the alleged defamatory statements enumerated in the Amended Statement of Claim are contained in e-mail messages distributed to large numbers of recipients. The alleged defamatory statements attributed to Ms. Halstead are repetitious, and use the same, or variations of the same, language. [13] Each of the plaintiffs except Andrew Chisholm gave evidence, as did non-party witnesses called by the plaintiffs. I was advised that the defendant apologized to Mr. Chisholm and that accordingly, Mr. Chisholm would seek a ruling on the tort claim and, if successful, nominal damages. THE COUNTERCLAIM [14] Ms. Halstead presented no case to support her claims and, accordingly, her counterclaim against the BCTF is dismissed with costs. BACKGROUND [15] Ms. Halstead is a parent whose children attended public schools in the Comox Valley. She is self-described as a long-time community volunteer activist. She appears to be a quasi-public figure in the Comox/Courtenay area. From 1999 to 2000, she sat on the executive of the Cumberland Junior School Parent Advisory Council ("PAC"). She was also a member of the executive of the PAC at Cumberland Elementary and GP Vanier Secondary School. For a number of years, concluding in 2001, she was on the executive of the District PAC, an umbrella organization of which all the PACs are members. She was involved with the BC Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils ("BCCPAC") of which each District PAC is a member. She was the parent representative on the accreditation team which reviewed and accredited Cumberland Junior School and various other schools. [16] Ms. Halstead has also been on the executive and chaired various advocacy groups including: "Parents Against Violence Everywhere" ("PAVE"), of which she is co-founder and current president; and the Comox branch, which she founded, of the Cowichan Valley Learning Disability Association ("CVLD"). As president of PAVE she has had contact with the media, with government representatives, and others in the "anti-bullying" movement. She has spoken to audiences of over 200 people in locations around the province. [17] Ms. Halstead twice campaigned for the office of school trustee in School District 71, once in 1999 when she apparently lost by a single vote, and again in 2002. She regularly writes letters to the editors of the local newspapers, letters she signs as "President, PAVE – Parents Against Violence Everywhere Society" or "President, CVLD – Comox Valley Learning Disabilities Association". She has attended innumerable District 71 School Board (the "School Board") meetings over the years. She formerly sat on a number of School Board committees. [18] Further, Ms. Halstead has filed human rights complaints and freedom of information requests. She has dealt with the provincial Office of the Ombudsman. In other words, she is well acquainted with the processes involved with and required in dealing with authoritative institutions within her community and indeed the province. [19] The evidence, including Ms. Halstead's own evidence on discovery, clearly shows that she created Internet chat groups or bulletin boards through which she communicated with parents and others within the education community in the Comox Valley and beyond. In February 2003 she created the GAFER website, the access to which was through addresses on the Shaw and Telus systems. These modes of Internet communication supplemented her use of e-mail by which she distributed messages to a broad audience, at times copying 20 or 30 people with her original message, some of whom were the plaintiffs' employers and immediate supervisors, including principals, vice principals, and the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent of School District 71. By e-mail, Ms. Halstead regularly made allegations of teachers' misconduct and allegations that the School Board mishandled or covered up the behaviours she referred to. [20] On Ms. Halstead's GAFER website was a page entitled "B.C.'s Least Wanted". On that page was a chart designed in a rogues' gallery format entitled "Least Wanted Educators". The chart consisted of a gallery of names and photographs of people Ms. Halstead considers to have engaged in wrongful conduct within the education system. The "Least Wanted Educators" chart was broken down into a number of subcategories, including: "Criminal Convictions" - where there were names and pictures of teachers and others who have been convicted of crimes. Many of these are sex-related crimes committed against students; "Criminal Charges" - where there were names and pictures of teachers and others who have apparently been charged with crimes; "Decertifications" - where there were names and pictures of teachers who have had their certificates revoked by the College of Teachers; " College of Teachers' Discipline" - where there were names and pictures of teachers who have been disciplined by the College of Teachers; "Educators in Court" - where there were names and pictures of teachers and others involved in various forms of litigation; "Bully Educators" - where there were names and pictures of teachers and others who Ms. Halstead alleges have committed acts deserving of rebuke, or deserving of the description "bully"; and "School Board Bullies" - where various school boards were named as having engaged in 'bully tactics', allegedly against parents and students. [21] Seven of the plaintiffs were named as "Bully Educators" in the "Least Wanted Educators" chart: Edmund (Ted) Newman, David Leonard (Len) Morrow, Roberta Ling, Kenneth Piercy, Andrew Chisholm, Elizabeth Eakin, and David Halme. Photographs of Mr. Newman and Mr. Morrow were posted on the site under the “Bully Educators” heading. Those whose photographs were not posted on the site were depicted by a cartoon image of an apple with a worm in it. [22] There was a further link on the GAFER site to "RCMP investigations". The plaintiff Mr. Newman was identified on this page in addition to being named a "Bully Educator". [23] A click of the mouse on the name or photograph of a person on the "B.C.’s Least Wanted" page linked the viewer with documentation regarding the person's alleged misdeeds. That documentation included newspaper articles, letters to the editor, correspondence exchanged between Ms. Halstead and others, documents obtained by Ms. Halstead from regulatory bodies, and commentaries written by Ms. Halstead. [24] Ms. Halstead created a separate link on the “B.C.’s Least Wanted” page to a "Bully Parent" page. The link to that page was represented by a cartoon image of a boxer. Ms. Halstead placed the plaintiff Gale Wheeler's name on that page. A click of the mouse on Ms. Wheeler's name linked the viewer to information and commentary on the alleged misdeeds of Ms. Wheeler. Ms. Wheeler then had two children in the local school system and was active in the Parent Advisory Committee with Ms. Halstead for a number of years. OVERVIEW OF THE LAW OF DEFAMATION [25] The common law recognizes that every person is entitled to his or her good name or reputation. That good name or reputation cannot be impeached without lawful justification or excuse. In Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130, 126 D.L.R. (4th) 129 (Hill), Cory J. explained the importance of dignity to a person’s reputation as follows (at paras. 107-108): [107] ... A good reputation is closely related to the innate worthiness and dignity of the individual. It is an attribute that must, just as much as freedom of expression, be protected by society's laws. ... [108] Democracy has always recognized and cherished the fundamental importance of an individual. That importance must, in turn, be based upon the good repute of a person. It is that good repute which enhances an individual's sense of worth and value. False allegations can so very quickly and completely destroy a good reputation. A reputation tarnished by libel can seldom regain its former lustre. A democratic society, therefore, has an interest in ensuring that its members can enjoy and protect their good reputation so long as it is merited. [26] In a defamation action, a plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the impugned words were written and published, that the words referred to the plaintiff, and that the words complained of are defamatory. See P.G. Restaurant Ltd. v. Northern Interior Regional Health Board et al (2004), 25 B.C.L.R. (4th) 242, 2004 BCSC 294 at para. 111, rev'd on other grounds 2005 BCCA 210 (P.G. Restaurant). [27] In law, "publication" in this context, is essentially the communication of a defamatory statement to a third party; publication to a wide audience is not required. This can take place through a variety of media, including through the Internet. [28] A published defamatory falsehood in writing constitutes a libel. The threshold inquiry in every defamation action is whether the words that are published are reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning: Brown, The Law of Defamation in Canada, 2nd ed., (Toronto: Carswell, 1994) at 171. [29] The essence of a defamatory statement is its tendency to injure a person's reputation. A statement is defamatory if it tends to lower the reputation of the plaintiff in his or her community in the estimation of reasonable persons: Botiuk v. Toronto Free Press Publications Ltd., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 3 at 24, 126 D.L.R. (4th) 609 (Botiuk). [30] In the case of Cronk v. Cundall (1993), 87 Man. R. (2nd) 141, M.J. No. 379 (Q.B.) (QL) (Cronk), Justice Wright of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench wrote at paras. 26 to 27: [26] The law of defamation protects a person's reputation from defamatory falsehoods. A publication is considered defamatory if it has the tendency to lower that reputation in the estimation of right thinking members of society. The court's duty is to determine if the alleged defamatory material, upon being given its natural and ordinary meaning as understood by average right thinking and reasonable persons, could convey a derogatory meaning tending to defame the plaintiffs. [27] Courts have found statements to be defamatory where their impact is to expose a person to hatred, contempt and ridicule, or cause a person to be detested, despised or regarded with feelings of dislike, fear or scorn. [31] In Cronk, Justice Wright further notes that if a statement published by a defendant is found to be defamatory, it is presumed to be false. If the truth of material found to be defamatory is established, the publication of the material is not actionable no matter "how callous or malicious the defendant may be in publishing ..." (at para. 29). [32] The affirmative defences to defamation are found in the plea of justification, or of fair comment, or of qualified privilege. If the plaintiff proves the published words are in fact defamatory of him or her, the defendant has the onus of proving that at least one of the defences applies. In this case, while the principal defence raised by Ms. Halstead's pleadings is justification, she also pleads fair comment and/or qualified privilege. [33] While it is acknowledged that Ms. Halstead would not participate in the trial process and that she bears the onus of establishing the defences raised in her pleadings, the plaintiffs specifically addressed the three defences raised in Ms. Halstead's statement of defence in their evidence and submissions. They submit they did so because the law acknowledges that public vindication is pivotal in a libel action and because they viewed as imperative the need to present the fullest possible case in the absence of Ms. Halstead. [34] Justification is the technical name for a defence of truth: Hare & Grolier Society v. Better Business Bureau, [1947] 1 D.L.R. 280, 1.W.W.R. 25, at 284 (B.C.C.A.) leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused (1947), 1 W.W.R. 289. It is a complete defence to a defamation action. Truth is a defence even if the defendant spoke maliciously with the intention of ruining the plaintiff’s reputation: Taylor‑Wright v. CHBC-TV, a division of WIC Television Ltd., [1999] B.C.J. No. 334, at para. 34 (S.C.), aff’d without discussion on this point (2000), 194 D.L.R. (4th) 621 (B.C.C.A.). The defendant's state of mind is irrelevant to the defence of justification. [35] The defence of fair comment was summarized by Goepel J. in P.G. Restaurant, supra, at paras. 156 and 157, as follows: [156] As Brown states in vol. 2 at p. 15-14, the defence of fair comment is established where the following five elements are present: To satisfy the requirements of this defence, it must be shown that the words are (1) comment; (2) based upon facts that are true; (3) made honestly and fairly; (4) without malice; (5) on a matter of public interest. [157] For a statement to be a comment it must be clearly recognizable as a statement of opinion, not as a bare statement of fact: see Vander Zalm v. Times Publishers Ltd. (1980), 109 D.L.R. (3d) 531 at 535 (B.C.C.A.). [36] The defence of fair comment will fail if the plaintiff proves that the dominant motive for publishing the defamatory expression is actual or expressed malice. [37] A defendant is actuated by express malice if he or she publishes a defamatory expression: 1. Knowing it is false (Hill at para. 145; Botiuk at 29); or 2. With reckless indifference whether it is true or false (Botiuk at 29); or 3. For the dominant purpose of injuring the plaintiff because of spite or animosity; or 4. For some other dominant purpose which is improper or indirect, or also, if the occasion is privileged, for a dominant purpose not related to the occasion: Botiuk at 29. [38] The defence of qualified privilege protects defamatory errors of fact which are not excused under the defences of justification or fair comment. Qualified privilege applies to an occasion where the defendant has an interest or duty (legal, social, or moral) to communicate the defamatory expression and its recipients have a corresponding duty or interest to receive that communication: Pressler v. Lethbridge (2000), 86 B.C.L.R. (3d) 257 at 295, 2000 BCCA 639. On the facts in the case at bar, I find that the defence of qualified privilege simply does not apply. [39] Each of the defences of justification and fair comment require proof that the impugned statements, or the facts upon which they are based, are true. In her pleadings, Ms. Halstead asserts that her published statements are true, yet she refused to come to this trial to support that assertion. The evidence shows that Ms. Halstead is a prolific writer, and that she converses with persons in authority and deals with authoritative institutions regularly and readily. One would have thought she would take advantage of the opportunity this trial afforded her; the opportunity to make public, yet again, her apparently long-held belief that each of the plaintiffs has acted improperly. This trial was her chance to prove the truthfulness of her allegations yet she deliberately chose not to attend. She simply would not take the witness stand in a public courtroom. [40] Our courts regularly hear from self-represented litigants, some of whom are decidedly less articulate than Ms. Halstead appears to be. Much of Ms. Halstead’s correspondence and publications filed as evidence in this trial indicates that Ms. Halstead is capable of researching legal topics, and understanding and utilizing regulatory regimes. For example, in some of her writing, she refers to sections of legislation, or to the law generally, in support of her positions. Against this backdrop, it is surprising that Ms. Halstead did not appear in her defence. Ms. Halstead should not expect to escape the legal consequences -- the responsibility for her actions -- by simply opting out of the process at the eleventh hour. CONTEXT IN WHICH THE ALLEGED DEFAMATION OCCURRED [41] The context in which the alleged defamatory statements were made by Ms. Halstead is of some import. Several witnesses testified regarding Ms. Halstead's lengthy campaign of conflict within the school system. The evidence establishes that since in or about 1997, Ms. Halstead has been highly conflict-driven, waging battles with everyone from PAC parents to teachers, trustees, and the Superintendent of Schools. [42] Danny White, a public school trustee in School District 71 since 1986, testified that Ms. Halstead has become well known to him in the years he has worked as a school trustee. He testified that in around 1996 or 1997, Ms. Halstead began sending letters to District 71 School Board members on a frequent basis. Much of the correspondence he received as a Board member was correspondence from Ms. Halstead directed to the Superintendent or others within the District, (such as School Board staff), copied to the seven members of the Board. [43] Mr. White testified that he kept track of the e-mail correspondence he received from Ms. Halstead between the spring of 2003 and early 2004. That e-mail correspondence comprises 11 computer floppy disks. The court received a 2-inch binder as an exhibit containing over 40 e-mail messages Mr. White received from Ms. Halstead and they represent, according to Mr. White, about one percent of those he received from her between 1997 and 2003. [44] Mr. White testified that Ms. Halstead's output of correspondence exceeded the combined output of all other persons in the entire District who wrote to the Board. He testified that many of Ms. Halstead's letters or messages were lengthy. [45] Ms. Halstead’s e-mail messages were sent to a wide audience, including District staff, trustees, principals and vice principals, media outlets, and politicians such as the MLA for the Comox area and the Minister of Education. [46] In addition to the correspondence were Ms. Halstead's written complaints to various officials, agencies and tribunals, which she copied widely to various people including Board members. Mr. White and the plaintiff Mr. Morrow, a former Board member and chair, testified that the number of "official" complaints from Ms. Halstead was "considerable". Mr. White testified this included complaints to the Human Rights Tribunal, the Ombudsman, the College of Teachers, the Workers Compensation Board, the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and the Superintendent of Schools. [47] Mr. White further testified that as part of her campaign, Ms. Halstead filed an immense number of Freedom of Information ("FoI") requests, followed up by a number of formal complaints to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Mr. White testified that Ms. Halstead would use the requests to try to obtain confidential information from the files of various personnel, including those of teachers. The frequency and scope of Ms. Halstead’s FoI requests became so oppressive that the Board made an application under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for permission to cease responding. Mr. White testified that this resulted in a mediated agreement whereby Ms. Halstead was limited to filing two requests every three months. [48] The evidence shows that Ms. Halstead has a significant number of supporters in the parent community. For example, a number of parents wrote letters to the Select Standing Committee on Education to express support for positions taken by Ms. Halstead in a submission to that Committee. [49] Ms. Halstead’s campaign had an increased profile due to Ms. Halstead’s frequent reference to herself as the president of either PAVE or the Comox Valley branch of the CVLD. There is evidence to suggest that Ms. Halstead used these organizations, and her title of "president", to advance her personal views and her personal campaign. For example, in a PAVE press release, Ms. Halstead twice refers the reader to her own GAFER website, referring to it as "the one-stop advocacy site". Another example is Ms. Halstead’s October 24, 2001 letter to the Board complaining about Mr. Morrow’s behaviour at a student disciplinary hearing. Ms. Halstead attended that hearing as an "advocate" for the family, not as a representative of the Learning Disabilities Association, yet she put her complaint on the Association’s letterhead. Further, Ms. Halstead frequently signed letters to the editor as "Sue Halstead, President" of PAVE or the CVLD. [50] Ms. Halstead’s profile appears to have extended broadly within education circles. In one of her e-mail messages, dated July 16, 2003, Ms. Halstead attaches a further message from the Project Coordinator of an anti-bullying project sponsored by the Canadian Public Health Association. The Coordinator states that Ms. Halstead was recommended by a representative of the University of British Columbia as "being able to offer excellent advice and information from a parent’s perspective on the issues of bullying". [51] Ms. Halstead repeatedly used highly charged language in making allegations and accusations in published statements to and about the Board, allegations and accusations which, according to the evidence of Mr. White and Mr. Morrow, were not warranted. She frequently published statements that the Board was involved in “unimaginable corruption” and engaged in "cover-ups" or "collusion". She would further allege that the Board was covering up "child abuse" and "crimes", and was guilty of "inciting hatred" and levelling "war-like psychological abuse" against her. [52] Mr. White testified that almost all of Ms. Halstead's correspondence contained accusations of misconduct about someone. The evidence of the plaintiff Mr. Morrow and the plaintiff Ms. Wheeler corroborated this evidence. Mr. White and Mr. Morrow categorically denied Ms. Halstead’s allegations that the Board was corrupt and engaged in cover-ups of alleged misconduct. They testified that all complaints made to the Board, including those of Ms. Halstead, were investigated. Whenever Ms. Halstead's complaints were found to be groundless, thereby requiring no further Board involvement, she often made and published statements that the Board was "covering up" or was otherwise incompetent. [53] On a number of occasions, Ms. Halstead complained to outside agencies and was told that her allegations had not been substantiated. For example, the Ombudsman was "not able to substantiate" Ms. Halstead’s complaint that " School District 71 failed to respond to her queries and efforts to hold the Board of Trustees accountable for the conduct of various district staff". [54] One of Ms. Halstead’s allegations was that she herself was being libelled and slandered. She went so far in one piece of correspondence to say that it had been "proven" that Mr. Morrow had libelled her. Mr. Morrow testified this simply was not true. [55] Once this action was commenced, Ms. Halstead filed complaints with the B.C. College of Teachers about a number of the plaintiffs. She described the plaintiffs' lawsuit against her as "vengeful" and "vexatious". [56] There is evidence that Ms. Halstead actively promoted her GAFER website and received press coverage in relation to it throughout the year 2003. Her website was referred to in an article in the Vancouver Sun and in a Mission newspaper from the Fraser Valley. Her website was also referred to in articles in the Cowichan News Leader. At one point, V.I. News interviewed Ms. Halstead as part of a larger piece on education. Her website and the work she was doing to "advocate" for children were referred to in a CHEK-TV news report and in a Vancouver Sun article. Mr. White testified that in 2002, there was an article or letter published in one of the local Comox Valley papers approximately every two weeks that made reference to Ms. Halstead's GAFER website. Many of Ms. Halstead's e-mails indicate they were sent to media outlets including the Comox Valley Echo and the Vancouver Sun. [57] Mr. White testified that all of the District trustees were aware that Ms. Halstead had a website named "GAFER". He testified that it was the topic of conversation among trustees, including at the Vancouver Island level and at the Annual General Meeting of the B.C. School Trustees Association. He also testified that the GAFER site was widely known amongst District staff. A hit counter on that site shows the extent of access to it. Before this action started and as of December 30, 2003, the GAFER site had 3,598 "hits". By July 13, 2004, it had 5,113 "hits". [58] The evidence shows that Ms. Halstead consistently and regularly, through correspondence, articles, and her website, expressed anti-teacher sentiment. An example of such sentiment is found in an e-mail message Ms. Halstead wrote to the plaintiff Mr. Morrow in which she stated: As far as my personal beliefs of the political climate in education, I find it very depressing and personally am feeling the heat from all partners. The turf war has started no doubt… Teachers are out of control. I believe a strike will be deadly for the teachers because the support workers have suffered much to supply them with their big wages, job security and PERCS… [emphasis in original] [59] Further evidence of this sentiment is found in Ms. Halstead's November 1, 2002 e-mail to the Superintendent of School District 71, where she writes: So grow up and start behaving like the professionals every teacher keeps harping about being and stop trying to keep parents from seeing what exactly it is that you do during your 6.5 hour day. ... How can we respect a profession when they don't respect themselves? They certainly don't demand respectful behaviour of each other either. [60] In a May 2003 e-mail sent to Mr. White, Ms. Halstead expressed her views of the BCTF: It [the website] shows that parents can make a difference, but it seems we can only make a difference by being as loud, obnoxious and tenacious as the BCTF... Don't forget that Administrators came from teaching roots and ideologies. When things get uncomfortable for them they will fall back on that. [61] In her submission to the Select Standing Committee on Education, Ms. Halstead concluded her submission by saying: As long as the BCTF is driving the bus, Children will continue to be the road kill left at the side. [62] Mr. White testified that by about 1997, Ms. Halstead became "very opposed to the public system" and "very aggressive" toward District staff. He testified that Ms. Halstead would "go through" the entire staff of the District office, and that her relationship with each individual would start positively and then inevitably turn sour. [63] The plaintiff Mr. Morrow testified that he had a good relationship with Ms. Halstead in the early to mid-1990s and that Ms. Halstead's input and involvement were constructive at that time. He testified that this changed between 1996 and 1997, and that he became the lightning rod for her increasing animosity. Mr. Morrow testified that this was one of the reasons why he voluntarily stepped down as Board Chair in 1997, and ultimately one of the reasons he did not run in the 2002 election for the School Board. [64] The plaintiff Ms. Wheeler also testified that Ms. Halstead was relatively balanced and very constructive in the school their children attended in the early and mid-1990s. She testified that in around 1996 to 1997 she began to see changes in Ms. Halstead. Ms. Wheeler testified that Ms. Halstead became increasingly conflict-oriented and accusatory of others. [65] Ms. Wheeler testified that relationships within the PAC began breaking down and that by the fall of 1998 Ms. Halstead appeared to be in conflict with virtually everyone in the school. As a consequence, Ms. Wheeler resigned from the PAC executive. Thereafter she had no contact with Ms. Halstead until she received Ms. Halstead's August 26, 2000 letter sent to various former members of the PAC executive. In the letter Ms. Halstead put the former PAC executive members on notice that she had obtained a legal opinion on the law of defamation. [66] Further illustrations of Ms. Halstead's approach is found in the evidence relating to an incident referred to as the "ambush" and to an incident referred to as the "rampage". The evidence shows that six years prior to the commencement of this action, the Comox Valley School District decided to eliminate the "Summit Program". The program was designed to help students with severe behavioural problems and was headed by a teacher, the plaintiff Mr. Harvey. A June 2, 1998 meeting was held, attended by a number of parents concerned with the proposed cancellation of the program. Mr. Harvey and the plaintiff Mr. Newman, a teacher also involved in the program, attended the meeting, albeit briefly. The evidence shows that at the request of the principal, Mr. Newman and Mr. Harvey left the meeting shortly after it started. According to the evidence of witnesses who were at the meeting, in particular parents such as Ms. Grant and Ms. Jager, Mr. Harvey and Mr. Newman left the meeting without incident and the meeting continued uneventfully. [67] The evidence of both Mr. Harvey and Mr. Newman was that they attended the meeting for a short time and, at the request of their principal who suggested there may be a conflict of interest for teachers to be at that particular meeting, said goodbye and quietly left the room. [68] In evidence is a letter that Ms. Halstead and another member of the PAC wrote to the Superintendent of Schools regarding the June 2, 1998 meeting. In it Ms. Halstead alleged that the principal was "politically ambushed" by the teachers Mr. Harvey and Mr. Newman and that those same teachers "very rudely" showed "disrespect" to the principal, "very loudly slammed the door" on the way out and behaved "inappropriately". The letter alleged that the "intention" of these teachers "was to put the principal in the position of having no real way to defend himself" and that the teachers were using parents as "political pawns". The letter called for disciplinary action to be taken against Mr. Harvey and Mr. Newman. [69] Ms. Grant testified that the description of the meeting set out by Ms. Halstead presented a completely false account of what took place. [70] Approximately five years later, and in 2003, Ms. Halstead published statements on the Internet regarding this same June 2, 1998 meeting. She alleged that Mr. Newman was involved in a "violent" ambush of the school principal. The plaintiffs' Amended Statement of Claim makes references to the 2003 publication. They include the following excerpts: ... two teachers were involved in an ambush of their principal, on their off time, displaying violence and documented insubordination with efforts to have parents demonstrate against him in the parking lot for the removal of a Severe Behaviour Program from the school ... ... Yet Mr. Newman was my daughter's special education teacher. Mr. Newman was angry about a formal complaint I had co-signed with my PAC Co-Chair about earlier violence we were both eye witnesses to. [71] Further, Ms. Halstead published a number of statements to the effect that Mr. Harvey is "violent" and in her Statement of Defence, cited the June 2, 1998 meeting as one of her particulars for justification. [72] Ms. Halstead's testimony under oath at her examination for discovery simply does not support the allegations which she made and published regarding the June 2, 1998 meeting. In stark contrast to her published statements, her discovery evidence relevant to this point is as follows: · She admitted that she did not watch what Mr. Newman was doing at the meeting and she agreed that nothing he said or did made any particular impression on her. · She admitted she did not know why Mr. Newman was at the meeting but thought that "maybe he had been manipulated by somebody into the situation". · When questioned about her published statement that the two teachers displayed violence, she confirmed that neither Mr. Newman nor Mr. Harvey hit or otherwise physically assaulted anyone at the meeting. · She agreed that Mr. Newman did not push, swear at, or threaten anyone. Indeed she testified that he said nothing at the meeting. · She testified that she witnessed no physical altercation at the meeting involving Mr. Harvey. The only "violence" she could point to involving Mr. Harvey at the meeting was alleged "intimidation". · She conceded that she did not see Mr. Newman slam the door upon departure from the meeting and that he did not participate in the "refusing to leave" she described in her published statements. [73] Further, and again in 2003, Ms. Halstead published statements initially made in a February 10, 2003 complaint filed with the B.C. Human Rights Commission in which she described the reactions of Mr. Harvey and Mr. Newman on June 4, 1998 when they became aware of the letter she wrote to the Superintendent after the June 2, 1998 meeting (the letter referred to in para. [68] of these Reasons). [74] Ms. Halstead's 2003 description of the events of June 4, 1998, described the teachers, particularly the plaintiffs Mr. Newman, Mr. Harvey and Ms. Harvey as going on a "rampage" through Cumberland Junior School during which they "abandoned" their classes and that they "... continued their terrorism throughout the School for the rest of that morning". She wrote and published that Mr. Newman held the whole school "hostage" for the entire morning. Her published statements include the following: ... These are just two incidents of this teacher's behaviour that has affected my daughter. Finally I made a formal complaint. The man [Newman] became so enraged he terrorized the whole school for the entire morning ... After five teachers gathered in this LA class and cried and made threats they all abandoned the kids and continued on down the hallways, slamming doors, threatening the administrators and finally threw a secretary out of the room ... ...The two teachers, upon finding out they were reported, went nuts in the school, and yelled verbal threats to hear at both the parent witness and the principal ... special needs students were abandoned and shaking and frightened, in their classroom ... In the case of Mr. Newman, for instance, on at least one occasion he stormed around the school swearing and threatening people, including myself ... He's [Newman] "gone off" on entire special ed classrooms. He held the school hostage for this entire morning ... [A] special ed class was abandoned after displaying his [Newman's] anger at me in a violent and uncontrolled manner with other teachers in front of the class. One of those teachers was openly crying. Other students remarked "whoa, this is scary". After abandoning the class, he screamed threats to bodily hurt me and the principal as he rampaged down the hall with these other teachers ... He was the one who gave orders to administrators at the school not to call the police while Ted Newman, Dave and Charlotte Harvey and ... went on this tantrum throughout the school that scared my daughter and the other special ed children they abandoned. Charlotte Harvey was in the class crying in front of all the children ... [75] At her examination for discovery, Ms. Halstead was asked questions regarding her 2003 published version of the events she alleged took place on June 4, 1998. Again, in stark contrast to her published version, Ms. Halstead testified that: · She was not present in the school during these alleged events. · Apart from the students in the learning assistance room, Ms. Halstead had no knowledge that any other students in the school knew anything was going on in the school during the alleged rampage/hostage situation, and no knowledge that any such students felt they were being held hostage in the school. · Her use of the "hostage" language was an overstatement that she now regrets. · As for what happened in the learning assistance room, Ms. Halstead confirmed the only person from whom she obtained information was her daughter who was in the learning assistance class for a maximum of 50 minutes and so could not have witnessed events for more than that length of time. · When the teachers were in the learning assistance room, they were in a soundproofed glassed-in area, so that it was unlikely the students could hear anything and nothing was specifically said to the students. · She did not know if Mr. Harvey was even present for this event. · As for the alleged "abandonment", her daughter "believes" the teachers were out of the class for "at least half an hour". But Ms. Halstead admitted her daughter has difficulty estimating time, and says she "would not want to put on record that it was any particular length of time". She agreed she "wouldn't want to put a lot of stock" in her daughter's estimates of time. · She was not certain whether a teaching assistant remained in the learning assistance class when the teachers allegedly left. · As for the assertion that all the teachers abandoned their classes, she had "no idea" if the plaintiff Charlotte Harvey did this, and added "I don't know that [my daughter] made an allegation that people abandoned the class, that's my allegation ...". · As for the assertion that Charlotte Harvey was "openly crying" in front of the class, Ms. Halstead’s information from her daughter was that Ms. Harvey "appeared to be crying" because Ms. Harvey was "all red-eyed". · It was exaggeration to say that Mr. Newman "terrorized the whole school for the entire morning". · She had no recollection of her daughter telling her any of the teachers were "swearing" in the school that day. [76] Ms. Langdon, a teaching assistant who was in the learning assistance room on June 4, 1998 testified. When referred to the defendant's written description of the events of the "rampage", Ms. Langdon testified that she had no recollection of any such events taking place at that time or at any time in the 12 years she worked as a teaching assistant at Cumberland Junior School. I accept Ms. Langdon's evidence. [77] Again, with respect to the "rampage" incident, Ms. Halstead published that one of the school's secretaries told her that Mr. Newman was on the phone in the school office making verbal threats to the principal. Ms. Halstead's version of events implied that the school secretary would have been aware or would have seen the behaviour of the teachers as described by Ms. Halstead. Further, she published that a school secretary told Ms. Halstead she was afraid of Mr. Newman and that no one had ever held Mr. Newman accountable. [78] Ms. Rennison testified that she was a secretary at Cumberland Junior School for 14 years and the secretary working in that capacity on June 4, 1998. She was referred to the evidence of Ms. Halstead's written description of the "rampage". She testified she had no recollection of such an event; specifically she had no recollection of Mr. Newman "storming around the school", "swearing and threatening people", and "going nuts in the school". She denied having any conversation with Ms. Halstead about Mr. Newman's behaviour either on that day or generally. In particular she denied telling Ms. Halstead that Mr. Newman was on the phone, verbally threatening the principal of the school. She denied telling Ms. Halstead that she was "afraid" of Mr. Newman or that "no one had held Mr. Newman accountable". Further, Ms. Rennison testified that in all the years she worked at Cumberland Junior School with Mr. Newman, she was never afraid of him. I accept Ms. Rennison's evidence. [79] The evidence of Mr. Newman, Mr. Harvey and Ms. Harvey is that Ms. Halstead's published version of the events of June 4, 1998 is entirely fictitious. Ms. Halstead's own testimony on discovery clearly confirms that is so. THE PLAINTIFFS [80] As stated above, seven of the plaintiffs were labelled as "Bully Educators" and "Least Wanted Educators" on the "B.C.’s Least Wanted" page of Ms. Halstead’s GAFER website. Those plaintiffs are each depicted in a chart entitled "Least Wanted Educators", which also identifies teachers who have been convicted of or charged with criminal offences or who have been disciplined by the College of Teachers. In addition, Gale Wheeler was named as a "Bully Parent" on the same website. [81] In the Amended Statement of Claim, the plaintiffs plead that the "B.C.’s Least Wanted" page has a number of defamatory components: the label "Least Wanted Educator"; the label "Bully"; those whose photographs were not posted on the site are depicted as an apple with a worm in it; those whose names are on the site are generally depicted as bad or rotten apples; and those whose names appear in the "Least Wanted Educators" chart are associated with convicted criminals. [82] Do these labels bear a defamatory meaning? The plain meaning of the labels "Least Wanted Educators" and "B.C.'s Least Wanted" is that the people identified in the chart are undesirable as educators. These labels suggest that an assessment has been made of the plaintiffs’ fitness as educators and that they are the least fit in the B.C. school system. It suggests the education system would be better off without these individuals. Further, these labels are a play on the more common "Most Wanted" label used by police forces to identify the alleged criminals they are most desirous of apprehending. [83] A number of witnesses testified that the term "bully" has taken on new significance in education circles in recent years. Bullying behaviour is taken very seriously by the School Board and by administrators, and indeed Mr. White testified the Board now has anti-bullying policies in place. Allegations of bullying are thoroughly investigated. Clearly the label "bully" is a very negative term. Ms. Halstead herself, in her examination for discovery, testified that a "bully educator" was a very negative label. [84] I find that the labels "Bully", "Least Wanted Educators" and "B.C.’s Least Wanted" serve to lower the plaintiffs (and others so labelled) in the eyes of the reasonable observer, and impair their personal and professional reputations. They are clearly defamatory. [85] Under Canadian law, a statement that a person is a "bad apple" is seen to be a derogatory statement and has been considered defamatory: Gauvin v. Twin Deer (1999), 269 A.R. 201, A.J. No. 1604 (Q.B.). [86] A defamatory imputation may arise through the juxtaposition of one picture alongside another, or by juxtaposition of pictures and words: Brown, The Law of Defamation in Canada, 2nd ed. (Scarborough, Ont.: Carswell, 1994) vol. 1 at 201. A defamatory imputation may be drawn by way of a cartoon: O’Neal v. Pulp, Paper & Woodworkers of Canada (1975), 4 W.W.R. 92, [1974] B.C.J. No. 522 (S.C.). Here, a defamatory imputation follows both from a teacher being represented by a "bad apple" cartoon, or by being grouped together with others who are represented as "bad apples" even though he or she may have his or her own photograph posted rather than an apple depiction. The depiction of the plaintiffs as "bad apples" is defamatory in that such a depiction would tend to lower the reputation of the plaintiffs in their community in the estimation of reasonable persons. [87] The association of the plaintiffs with other educators who have committed serious offences is analogous to the association of a person with criminals as occurred in Monsonv. Tussauds Limited, [1894] 1 Q.B. 671 (E.W.C.A.). That case illustrates that the law will recognize a defamatory imputation arising from a plaintiff being associated with serious wrongdoers, which in turn implies his or her own serious wrongdoing. The case law further recognizes that the association of a person with wrongdoers in a rogues' gallery format may bear a defamatory meaning: Wheeler v. Somerfield, [1996] 2 Q.B. 94 at 104. [88] In the case at bar, the "Least Wanted Educators" chart was a classic rogues’ gallery. It was a public display of names and photographs designed to elicit feelings of contempt for those identified therein. The rogues’ gallery included names and photographs of notorious sex offenders and pedophiles. Many of the plaintiffs expressed shock and horror at seeing their names in the same chart as Robert Noyes, for example. [89] The seven plaintiffs named in these charts have never been charged with a criminal offence. Of course it follows that they have never been convicted. Nor have they been decertified by the College of Teachers or otherwise disciplined. [90] Although the plaintiffs were identified in a separate subcategory of the chart ("Bully Educators") and that subcategory was separated by a certain amount of space from the category “Criminal Convictions”, this takes little away from the sting of the association as the viewer of the site sees the criminals at the outset, and all subcategories fall under the global headings "B.C.'s Least Wanted" and "Least Wanted Educators". [91] Mr. Piercy testified that viewers of the site who used a conventional modem connection, rather than a high-speed connection, would not see the intervening subtitles at all, and that all the pictures appeared under the heading "Criminal Convictions" for several minutes before other subheadings appeared. [92] The plaintiffs testified to feelings of shock, horror, revulsion, and of feeling sick to the stomach upon viewing their names and depictions on the "Least Wanted Educators" chart. [93] I have concluded that the chart, in its association of the plaintiffs with those convicted of criminal or otherwise undesirable conduct, is harmful to the plaintiffs' reputations, both professional and personal. I find that the "B.C.’s Least Wanted" page is designed to, and does, lower the plaintiffs in the eyes of the reasonable observer, and subjects them to scorn and dislike. Edmund (Ted) Hunter Newman [94] Mr. Newman's career in education spans 20 years. For the last 14 years he has taught at Cumberland Junior School. His expertise is in math, physical education and in the learning assistance field. His post-secondary education includes a Diploma in Business Administration, Industrial Education and a Bachelor of Education from the University of British Columbia. He testified that educating young people is his passion, his "calling". [95] Mr. Newman's tireless work extends beyond the classroom. He testified that he has coached basketball and track; and he coached girls' basketball for nine years. His typical schedule from October to March was that four nights per week were consistently devoted to coaching or refereeing. He held an open basketball practice session on Sundays. From March to June, he ran a spring league for girls’ basketball. [96] Inexplicably, Mr. Newman appears to have been Ms. Halstead's primary target. I say inexplicably because, on his evidence, which I accept, Mr. Newman had very little direct contact with Ms. Halstead and over the years his contact with the Halstead children when they attended Cumberland Junior School was limited to their attendance at his Learning Assistance class from time to time. [97] The allegations of defamation pled in respect of Mr. Newman can be categorized as follows: a) that Mr. Newman is a bad teacher; b) that Mr. Newman is a violent teacher; c) that Mr. Newman has engaged in professional misconduct; d) that Mr. Newman has engaged in criminal conduct; and e) that Mr. Newman is a person of low moral character. [98] Ms. Halstead identified Mr. Newman by name and photograph on the "B.C.’s Least Wanted" page of her website as a "Least Wanted Educator" and a "Bully Educator", and further named him on the GAFER site under "RCMP investigations". On the latter site, Ms. Halstead referred to Mr. Newman as the subject of an RCMP investigation. What she did not publish is that she herself made the complaint that initiated the RCMP investigation, and that following the investigation, the RCMP concluded there was simply no need to take further steps; in other words, that her complaint was apparently groundless. Thereafter, she filed a report with the Police Commissioner concerning the RCMP officer who undertook the investigation. [99] By letter of October 27, 2003, the RCMP advised Ms. Halstead that no further steps would be taken regarding her request for an investigation of Mr. Newman. Nevertheless, on December 29, 2003, Ms. Halstead still placed Mr. Newman's name on the "RCMP investigations" page of her website, and later reported him to the College of Teachers. [100] In evidence are the many allegations Ms. Halstead has published regarding Mr. Newman's conduct and character. Ms. Halstead wrote and widely published statements that Mr. Newman is a violent teacher. These included extreme statements about Mr. Newman such as that he "dissolves into blind rages on a regular basis", exhibits "explosive violence", commits "psychological terror", and "puts children at risk". In addition, she alleged that Mr. Newman was violent in her published fictitious versions of the "ambush" and "rampage" incidents. [101] Witnesses at this trial, ranging from teaching colleagues to parents, students, and past administrators, testified that they had no experience with Mr. Newman being violent. Quite the opposite, the witnesses unanimously and persuasively described Mr. Newman as fun, caring, and as an excellent teacher. He was described in the evidence as the sort of teacher who "goes the extra mile" to help his students succeed. [102] Ms. Watson testified that she took grades 7 and 8 math from Mr. Newman between 2000 and 2002. She recalled Mr. Newman as a good, funny teacher; one she looked forward to seeing each day. She stated that "kids could relate to him". She testified that she was never fearful of him nor did she perceive that other students were. She also recalled being disciplined by him but not in a manner that made her fearful. She testified she does not recall Mr. Newman ever being violent or prone to throwing rages. Ms. Watson was a credible witness. [103] Mr. Bomback testified that he took a number of Mr. Newman's classes between 2000 and 2003. He testified that he has no recollection of Mr. Newman acting violently, raging at students, or assaulting students. He recalled being disciplined by Mr. Newman in a calm and even handed manner. He never saw Mr. Newman exhibit violent behaviour. He never felt fearful of Mr. Newman. I found Mr. Bomback to be a credible witness. [104] Ms. Grant testified that her son was in Mr. Newman's learning assistance classes for grades 7, 8, and 9 between 2001 and 2003. She testified that her son and Mr. Newman had a "great relationship". At no time did her son tell her that Mr. Newman exhibited violent behaviour. She testified that she felt her son "made it through" junior school because of Mr. Newman’s help. She testified that her son created an alien figurine called the "Newmanator" in recognition of the help Mr. Newman gave him in learning denominators and numerators. I found Ms. Grant to be a credible witness. [105] Ms. Jager testified that her son was in Mr. Newman's learning assistance class in the 1998/1999 school year. She credibly testified that her son "just loved Mr. Newman" and that she still hears "Mr. Newman this and Mr. Newman that". She testified that Mr. Newman prepared materials for her son to help him keep up with his school work during the summer. [106] The plaintiff Mr. Hurley worked with Mr. Newman as a teacher at Cumberland Junior School for many years. He testified that Mr. Newman was liked and respected by the staff and the students. He never heard anything about Mr. Newman being violent, and that such behaviour would be "so alien to his personality". [107] The plaintiff Mr. Harvey testified that in his position as a teacher of students with severe behavioural problems, he has heard many "teacher" stories. He testified that in his experience such students are prone to being negative about teachers. However, many of these students tell him that Mr. Newman is a “very, very good teacher”. [108] Mr. Irwin testified that he was Mr. Newman’s principal at Cumberland Junior School prior to 1990. He described Mr. Newman as a "first class teacher", "personable"; a teacher who really "loved the kids"; and a teacher that the "kids responded to". He neither observed nor heard nor received any complaints about violent behaviour or assaults on students by Mr. Newman. He testified that "he couldn’t imagine it". I found Mr. Irwin to be a credible witness. [109] Mr. Newman testified he strongly supports teaching students, by example and otherwise, how to deal with bullying behaviour. He is clear that he permits no bullying in his classes and beyond. He noted this is especially so in his P.E. class, which he testified is a common place for bullying. He testified that his home room is always open; it is a safe haven for students who do not have a place to hang out. He testified that over the years many parents have asked that he be their child's homeroom teacher. [110] Ms. Halstead further wrote and published a statement that Mr. Newman "took a student, D.R., down to the ground and slammed his head against a concrete floor several times". On May 26, 2003, she published her version of this alleged incident on her website. This description, as written and published by Ms. Halstead, if true and proven, describes criminal conduct - an assault - a decidedly serious allegation and a serious attack on Mr. Newman's professionalism. [111] At her examination for discovery, Ms. Halstead confirmed that she filed this complaint against Mr. Newman via an e-mail she sent to the Superintendent of the Comox Valley School District. Her complaint was based on "rumours" that Mr. Newman had taken a student referred to as "D.R." down to the ground and slammed that student's head against a concrete floor several times. In her e-mail to the Superintendent, she refers to the allegation as being based on rumour only. [112] On discovery, Ms. Halstead admitted having no personal knowledge whatever of any such event. She confirmed that she had never spoken to the student "D.R." about this event, and had learned of the rumour by overhearing a conversation between two unknown students outside of the school office, four and one-half years before she reported the incident to the Superintendent in May 2003. [113] On and after May 26, 2003, Ms. Halstead published on her website an exchange of e‑mails between herself and the Superintendent, along with other correspondence she had relating to this alleged incident. In these published statements, she styled the episode with the student D.R. not as rumour or gossip, but as "common knowledge" within the community. [114] In his evidence, Mr. Newman flatly denied any such event and denied that he ever at any time acted in a violent manner towards students or indeed, any person. [115] Ms. Halstead repeatedly published that Mr. Newman has assaulted other students without giving any particulars or any proof. She has published, for example, that he has been "physical against students", and that he "physically assaulted two boys at different times". However, she has never furnished any facts to support her allegations, and ultimately admits that she merely overheard vague statements. Further, Ms. Halstead has repeatedly published that Mr. Newman "throws students across rooms and against lockers". But on examination for discovery she admitted that she did not witness Mr. Newman throwing students across the room or against lockers, her daughter did not report that to her, and that her only source of information might have been (but she did not know) a discussion in the hallway between students, which she overheard. Mr. Newman denied all of these allegations. [116] The evidence shows that Ms. Halstead repeatedly asserted on her website, on her Internet chat sites and in correspondence to senior officials in the education community (ranging from the principal to the Minister of Education) that Mr. Newman threatened Ms. Halstead's daughter and other students with special needs "both verbally and with weapons (a baseball bat and a mallet)". Mr. Newman denied the allegations. [117] Despite what she wrote on the Internet, and elsewhere, Ms. Halstead agreed, on discovery, that there was no basis for her suggestion that Mr. Newman had "threatened" the children with a baseball bat. [118] With respect to "threatening to hit children with a mallet", Ms. Halstead reported this alleged behaviour of Mr. Newman to many authorities, including the District Superintendent, the B.C. College of Teachers, the local MLA, and the Minister of Education. Mr. Newman testified that at no time did he threaten anyone or any student with a mallet in the course of any of his classes. The two former students who testified confirmed and corroborated Mr. Newman’s evidence in this regard, as did the testimony of a number of Mr. Newman's colleagues. On discovery, Ms. Halstead testified that her only source of information for this assertion was her daughter who, from time to time, attended Mr. Newman's class for learning assistance. She agreed on discovery that while she considered the possibility that her daughter had misinterpreted Mr. Newman's actions, at no time did she question her about it. [119] The gist of Ms. Halstead's discovery evidence leads me to conclude that without substantiating the comments she heard from her daughter, or the "rumours" she supposedly heard from others, she proceeded to publish her comments as though they were supported facts, and she did so on the Internet. Eventually, and at her examination for discovery, Ms. Halstead admitted that her daughter was not even a student in Mr. Newman's class in the year the alleged "threats" to hit children with a mallet were made. [120] Ms. Halstead further wrote and published allegations that Mr. Newman threatened to hit children with pencils, chalk brushes, chalk and erasers in a violent manner. Mr. Newman testified that he would from time to time toss a pencil or an eraser, or lob a piece of chalk, at one of the students in a playful manner, particularly if they asked for some of the equipment. He denied doing so in a "violent" or "threatening" manner. [121] Ms. Halstead made and published allegations that Mr. Newman screamed and yelled at her daughter to "get out of school", and threatened to make sure that she would not receive learning assistance the following year. Mr. Newman testified he did no such thing. He testified further that in any event he has no authority to prevent a student from accessing learning assistance. He testified that in the four years that Ms. Halstead's daughter was at Cumberland Junior School between 1996 and 2000, she at times attended Mr. Newman's learning assistance block, and that he had very little contact with Ms. Halstead and certainly no contact he remembers as negative. [122] It is instructive to note that long after Ms. Halstead's daughter ceased attending Cumberland Junior School, Ms. Halstead wrote and published allegations that Mr. Newman threatened her daughter during her attendance there. Yet the evidence clearly shows that during that child’s four years at Cumberland Junior, no one brought such allegations to the attention of the school administration, or to Mr. Newman. [123] Ms. Halstead also wrote and published that Mr. Newman threatened her in the school parking lot. He denies doing so. It is this alleged threat that Ms. Halstead reported to the RCMP which led to the investigation of Mr. Newman referred to earlier in these Reasons. [124] Ms. Halstead confirmed on discovery that she wrote and published an allegation that Mr. Newman was "stoned" at a school play and that he was addicted to marijuana. Mr. Newman denied these allegations in his evidence. On discovery, Ms. Halstead admitted she had no evidence to support that allegation and in September 2004, she wrote plaintiffs' counsel claiming she was "sorry especially about the allegations of Mr. Newman being stoned at the play", and that while she perceived his marijuana addiction to be true, she had no proof. [125] Ms. Halstead wrote and published that Mr. Newman's foster child was removed from his care by the Ministry of Children and Families. In fact, Mr. Newman has never been a foster parent. Her published allegation included a statement that Mr. Newman "told" her that his foster child had been removed from his care. Mr. Newman testified he said no such thing to Ms. Halstead. On discovery, Ms. Halstead testified that Mr. Newman did not tell her that his foster child had been removed from his care; rather, this allegation arose from "something" she overheard him discussing with others while she was in the school. [126] Ms. Halstead wrote and published allegations that Mr. Newman was engaged in behaviour which somehow violated her and her daughter's human rights, and that he somehow conspired against Ms. Halstead to "set up" unspecified "conflicts". She wrote and published that he was engaged in some kind of unspecified misconduct which would lead to revocation of his teaching certificate, and that he incited unnamed teachers' aids and two teachers to defame Ms. Halstead to staff at Cumberland Junior School. [127] Ms. Halstead referred to Mr. Newman on her website as a "Bin Laden Wanna Be". At discovery, she admitted that she meant that description to apply to someone else, but she agreed a reader could understand it to apply to Mr. Newman. Despite this admission, she referred to Mr. Newman as "being capable of the Columbine massacre". [128] I found Mr. Newman to be a most credible witness and a person whom I would describe as the very antithesis of the person described by Ms. Halstead. Furthermore, on all of the evidence I heard of Mr. Newman's career as an educator, I conclude without hesitation that he has been and is a talented, dedicated teacher – a truly exemplary professional. [129] I find that Ms. Halstead engaged in a prolonged and deliberate campaign to discredit Mr. Newman as a teacher. Her numerous published statements about Mr. Newman were without substance and manifestly untrue. They were clearly designed to lower Mr. Newman’s reputation in the community in the eyes of the reasonable observer. Accordingly, Mr. Newman has met his burden of proving defamation. David Ralph Harvey [130] Mr. Harvey began his career as an educator in Victoria in 1987 after graduating from the University of Victoria with a Bachelor of Education degree. He has taught in the public school system in the Comox Valley since the mid-1990's. Mr. Harvey is married to the plaintiff Charlotte Harvey. [131] The allegations of defamation pled in respect of Mr. Harvey can be categorized as follows: a) that Mr. Harvey is a violent teacher; b) that Mr. Harvey engages in professional misconduct and is generally unprofessional; and c) that Mr. Harvey is a person of low moral character, including that he and his wife, the plaintiff Ms. Harvey, knowingly associate with a child pornographer. [132] As with Mr. Newman and other teachers, Ms. Halstead published statements alleging that Mr. Harvey is a violent teacher. Mr. Harvey testified that such allegations are especially damaging and counter-productive to his work with students who exhibit severe behavioural problems. As he explained to the court, his students are those who have been "at the bottom" and they do not have a lot trust in educators or in the school system generally. Mr. Harvey testified that Ms. Halstead's published statements particularly denigrate his trustworthiness and that it is trust that he must demonstrate to these students and to their parents in order to teach them. Again, some of the impugned statements, if true, would be worthy of criminal action. [133] As with Mr. Newman and referred to earlier, in 2003 Ms. Halstead published that Mr. Harvey participated in an "ambush" of the school principal and exhibited "violence" and "insubordination" at a meeting on June 2, 1998. [134] Following the "ambush", Ms. Halstead alleged that Mr. Harvey joined Mr. Newman and others on the June 4, 1998 "rampage" through Cumberland Junior School, and again exhibited various forms of "violence" as referred to earlier in these reasons. [135] Mr. Harvey testified as to his involvement and that of Mr. Newman in the June 2, 1998 meeting. Mr. Harvey was a credible witness. I accept without hesitation his version of the events of June 2, 1998. Ms. Halstead's published version of those same events is not worthy of belief. [136] According to Ms. Halstead's version of the "rampage" incident, "Ted Newman, Dave Harvey and Charlotte Harvey and [E.B.] went [on] a temper tantrum throughout the school that scared my daughter and other special ed kids they abandoned". Ms. Halstead also alleged that during the incident Mr. Newman and Mr. Harvey made threats of violence against her. [137] Mr. Harvey's version of the events of June 4, 1998 differed markedly from the various versions subsequently written and published by Ms. Halstead. In this respect, and throughout his testimony, I found Mr. Harvey to be a credible witness. Further, on all the evidence it is clear that Mr. Harvey is a dedicated, competent and talented educator. [138] Ms. Halstead's published allegations in regard to Mr. Harvey and the innuendo she deliberately created from and by them is without substance and is entirely unbelievable. Her "ambush" and "rampage" theme go to the heart of Mr. Harvey's professionalism as a teacher. He is depicted as a teacher who misconducts himself by being violent towards students, parents, and to his principal. [139] Further, as a continuation of a common theme, Ms. Halstead groups Mr. Newman and the Harveys together as persons of low moral character. Ms. Halstead treats the Harveys with contempt, alleging they are a family associated with a known user of child pornography. On May 23, 2003, Ms. Halstead published the following on the Internet: I forgot to mention one thing. Mr. and Mrs. Harvey loved to entertain the students at all of their assemblies etc. with their three piece band through these years. The third member of the band was Mr. Donald Burton McLeod. If you would like to know what happened to him following his conviction for child pornography check out the least wanted educators website. He's on there also. He was the special education aide in the school and a good friend of the Harveys. … Just a nice big happy family in this school district. If you are willing to wallow in the gutter you get along fine here. If you aren't willing to do that then you are forced to your knees anyway. [140] The clear implication is that the Harveys condone the acts of a person convicted of an offence related to child pornography and that they belong to a "nice big happy family" accepting of such criminal acts. [141] Mr. Harvey's evidence was that since both he and his wife are musicians, they and others were often called upon to provide music at school assemblies. He testified that other staff members and students often participated in the band on such occasions. He testified that he recalls a teaching assistant, Mr. McLeod, was one such occasional participant. He testified further that neither he nor Ms. Harvey had any relationship with Mr. McLeod outside of school events. He testified that as much as two years after these musical events, he came to know that Mr. McLeod got "involved with the criminal law". I accept Mr. Harvey's evidence in this regard. [142] Further, and as with Mr. Newman, Ms. Halstead published statements which associated the Harveys with a "bingo thief" at their "regular Friday night drinking parties". Again, these statements were designed to attack the Harveys' professional and personal reputations. [143] Ms. Halstead published various statements in 2003 and thereafter regarding Mr. Harvey's alleged professional misconduct. For example: ... boy it sounds like everyone keeping the professional misconduct of ... Newman and the Harveys quiet are probably going to lose their certificates before the bad guys do … ... the special education staff consisting of Ted Newman, Charlotte Harvey and her husband Dave and this Val decided to start going after me with set up conflicts. [144] Mr. Harvey credibly denied all such allegations made by Ms. Halstead. Nothing in Ms. Halstead's own testimony given under oath at her examination for discovery could possibly support the truthfulness of her depictions of Mr. Harvey's character or demeanour in the context of his profession, in his role as a parent, or otherwise as a citizen. [145] Ms. Halstead’s statements serve to lower Mr. Harvey’s reputation in the community both professionally and personally. Indeed, they were intended to have that effect. Accordingly, I find that Ms. Halstead’s published statements regarding Mr. Harvey are clearly defamatory. Charlotte Elizabeth Mary-Ann Harvey [146] Ms. Harvey is a public school teacher with 20 years of teaching experience; the last nine within the Comox Valley. She is married to the plaintiff David Harvey. Her specialties are drama and choral music. She holds a Bachelor of Education and a Master's degree. The Harveys have three children who attended or still attend public school in the Comox Valley. [147] Among her other responsibilities, Ms. Harvey has organized and organizes field trips to drama and musical productions. She takes students to Vancouver annually. She has organized and accompanied students on such trips to Oregon and to New York City. [148] As well, Ms. Harvey has organized local students in drama and musical productions, one of which ran for six nights to a combined audience of over 5,000 people at Cumberland Junior School. [149] Ms. Harvey strikes me as a dedicated, highly energetic teacher; one determined to give her students a broad fine arts experience. She commits a significant portion of her personal time to promoting and attaining educational goals. She sets a high standard for herself. [150] The defamatory stings contained in the statements Ms. Halstead published about Charlotte Harvey can be categorized as follows: a) that Ms. Harvey has engaged in professional misconduct and is generally unprofessional; b) that she is incompetent, particularly as regards the organization and management of school field trips; and c) that she is a person of low moral character, including that she is lewd, manipulative, and knowingly associates with child pornographers. [151] In the two years prior to the commencement of this lawsuit and beyond, Ms. Halstead repeatedly published statements regarding Ms. Harvey's conduct on a day trip Ms. Harvey organized in 1997 for approximately 50 students to attend "The Phantom of the Opera" in Vancouver (the "Phantom" trip). The trip involved grade 7 students plus some elementary school children, including Ms. Harvey’s own children. Ms. Halstead attended the trip as a parent chaperone. [152] Ms. Halstead published statements on her website, in chat groups and in e‑mails, which included two categories of assertions regarding the 1997 Phantom trip. First, that Ms. Harvey made sexually inappropriate comments to, or in the presence of, students on this field trip. Second, that Ms. Harvey was incompetent in her management of the trip. [153] With respect to Ms. Harvey’s alleged sexual inappropriateness on the Phantom trip, Ms. Halstead published statements in 2002 and 2003 which include the following: [Ms. Harvey] openly discussed sexual issues with the students and a male teacher chaperone … [Ms. Harvey] discussed tricking the Principal … into coming to her house … while waiting for him to arrive she slipped into a see-through nightie which was what she was wearing when she met him at the door. She stated that she tried to get him to come in but he wouldn't. She felt it was important that the grade 7 students, myself, the male teacher and the bus driver know that she had gotten her principal in this situation. [Ms. Harvey] also felt it was important for them to know they were too young to lose their virginity ... [Ms. Harvey] likes to speak about see-through nightie set-ups and the loss of her virginity in front of grade seven kids on a bus trip. That I witnessed with my own ears. Because the teacher had told them all the story of waiting for him in a see-through nightie, whenever she'd fall all over him in front of the kids they would all laugh and recount the story to each other. [154] I am satisfied that these allegations are designed to attack Ms. Harvey at the core of her professional function, as she is a teacher who is repeatedly placed in a position of trust in connection with school field trips and extracurricular choral and dramatic productions. Ms. Halstead's clear inference from her published statements is that Ms. Harvey sought to seduce the principal. Not only is this innuendo offensive from the perspective that Ms. Harvey is married, and knew her principal to be married, but it suggests an immense lack of professional judgment on her part. [155] Ms. Halstead wrote at great length in an attempt to discredit Ms. Harvey’s competence in connection with the Phantom trip, which she depicted as an unmitigated disaster. The evidence shows that Ms. Harvey has an outstanding record in connection with the many field trips she led both before and after the Phantom trip. The only person ever to have complained about a trip led by Ms. Harvey, including the Phantom trip, is Ms. Halstead. Her published allegations of incompetence include: Things were so bad, so unsafe … that formal complaints of misconduct were filed at the time. The wife [Ms. Harvey] snuck her own child on the bus and directed the class to hide him from the busdriver as we were over limit. She never counted heads when we got on and off ferries, she let the other teacher (male) drink alcohol while sitting with the kids at lunch … [Ms. Harvey] let the kids roam around Vancouver Robson on their own without supervision telling them to meet back at the theatre when the show was to start. This despite her bringing her kid’s friends from different schools (even elementary) on the trip while kicking kids from our school out. She made us miss the ferry sightseeing in the bus so we didn't get home until after midnight despite the fact parents were prepared to pick their kids up much earlier. This meant that we had 2 hours to kill in horseshoe bay and she just told the kids to do what they wanted and meet us as [sic] the ferry in 2 hours. Other parents went on other really bad trips with this woman. I never let my kids go to a teacher's house or on a field trip without me. I've just seen too much to know that on the rare occasion they end up in bad situation with irresponsible teacher's [sic] there is no recourse to make sure it doesn't happen again. Both these teachers are still teaching and still going on trips galore. The parents filed complaints with Mr. Woolman and Mr. Joubert, after going to the principal and him getting no support from the senior administrators. Nothing ever was done at the district level to ensure our kids safety. Once the bus is away from the school the teachers are in control. They can stop and pick up other kids, leave kids unsupervised and rowdy. They can do pretty much anything they want. ... My daughter was hurt at Horseshoe Bay on that bus trip. Her entire chin was ripped open. The first aide fellow on the ferry told me that she needed to be sewn up immediately when we got to Nanaimo. Charlotte (the teacher) didn't want to stop because we were already so late going home. I didn't argue. I didn't want to spend anymore time with this woman … After venting about these two scary trips with most irresponsible teachers I ever met I asked my daughter if she remembered the one 5 years ago with the drama teacher and the young, good looking English Teacher. I know when it was because it took place during accreditation and this teacher was causing all kinds of trouble with that as well … [Ms. Halstead's daughter] said what she remembered most about the trip was that the teachers kept ditching the kids. I asked her what she meant and she said 'you were the only one that took care of any of us'. [156] As well, Ms. Halstead stated that during the trip Ms. Harvey "was lying to these children (grade 7) and then telling them their principal was the bad guy so they'd lose respect for him and think she was their heroine". This allegation was in connection with Ms. Harvey's attempt to organize a field trip to New York, something she had done three times in the Victoria School District. [157] Ms. Harvey denied each allegation levelled by Ms. Halstead. I find that Ms. Harvey was a credible witness, one whose evidence I accept without hesitation. Further, Ms. Flawse (then a student) and Mr. Olsen (another teacher), both of whom were on the Phantom trip testified. Neither recalls anything untoward occurring on the field trip. Both Ms. Flawse and Mr. Olsen described a trip they recall as being well organized, well run and generally unremarkable. Ms. Flawse gave credible evidence that if Ms. Harvey (or any teacher for that matter) had spoken to students in the sexually explicit manner which Ms. Halstead asserts she did, it would be memorable; yet, she had no recollection of such conversations on the Phantom bus trip. [158] Mr. Olsen, also a credible witness, testified that he has no recollection of Ms. Harvey talking of sexual matters on the Phantom trip. As with the evidence of Ms. Flawse, I conclude from Mr. Olsen's evidence that, as one would expect, a conversation of this nature in such a setting would be so remarkable as to be unforgettable. Yet he has no recall of it. Mr. Olsen denies Ms. Halstead's allegation that students were left unattended or unsupervised on this trip. He denies that any teacher or indeed anyone on the trip consumed alcohol. [159] I wish to emphasize that, as with the "ambush" and "rampage" statements, Ms. Halstead published her statements about the Phantom trip at least five years after the alleged events; and she published them widely. [160] I have concluded that Ms. Halstead's version of the Phantom bus trip, first published in a letter she wrote immediately upon her return from that trip, and subsequently re-published years later, is manifestly untrue. The publication of these allegations serves to undermine Ms. Harvey's exceptional 20-year record of organizing and leading field trips without incident. That record has been tarnished by these public allegations of incompetence. [161] In reference to the June 4, 1998 "rampage", Ms. Halstead published the following with respect to Ms. Harvey: … went on a tantrum throughout the school that scared my daughter and the other special ed kids they abandoned. Charlotte was in the class crying in front of all the children … Her husband worked in our school also and was one of the ones that went on the rampage with Mr. Newman. She stood in front of the class and cried during that. My daughter was in the class. Then she joined the rampage and they all abandoned their classrooms. [162] Again, these statements suggest a lack of professionalism, a lack of composure, and in the case of "abandoning" students, professional misconduct. [163] Further, Ms. Halstead has attempted to paint Ms. Harvey as immoral, lewd and manipulative. This attack goes directly to her character and reputation and adversely affects her role as a teacher, parent and spouse, and as a citizen generally. The impugned statements made and published by Ms. Halstead include the following: In fact this complainant had also filed a complaint against Mr. Harvey’s wife (another teacher) in the School for "lewd" conduct on a bus trip in which she openly discussed sexual issues with the students and a male teacher chaperone. Our school board did not follow like lemmings after an impassioned and very dramatic performance by our School Board chair last night. I didn't know whether to burst out laughing or cry at how embarrassing it was. She's obviously been taking lessons from Charlotte Harvey and/or Meghan Cursons (two close friends cut from the same cloth). Both those ladies have used that theatrical technique to manipulate so much out of so many. Mr. and Mrs. Harvey loved to entertain the students at all of their assemblies etc. with their three piece band through these years. The third member of the band was Mr. Donald Burton McLeod. If you would like to know what happened to him following his conviction for child pornography check out the least wanted educators website. He's on there also. He was the special education aide in the school and a good friend of the Harveys … Just a nice big happy family in this school district. If you are willing to wallow in the gutter you get along fine here. If you aren't willing to do that then you are forced to your knees anyway. [164] The last of these statements is particularly offensive in that the clear innuendo is that the Harveys possess the same moral character as a person convicted of a child pornography-related offence. The references to "good friend" and "one big happy family" and "wallow in the gutter" were drafted so as to connect the Harveys with Mr. McLeod and to suggest they are all equally deserving of contempt. This is an assertion of guilt by association and the clear innuendo is that it was a knowing association. [165] Ms. Halstead also published a statement that Ms. Harvey engaged in "sexual harassment of the principal" and that she was insubordinate to the school principal, in that she "openly trashed him to students", a matter which again, if true, would show a serious lack of professional judgment. As in the case of other plaintiffs Ms. Halstead reported Ms. Harvey to the B.C. College of Teachers after the commencement of this lawsuit. That complaint was dismissed in June 2004. [166] Ms. Harvey testified that prior to the "Phantom" bus trip she had not met Ms. Halstead and that she had virtually no contact with her thereafter. Ms. Harvey never taught any of the Halstead children. [167] It is clear that Ms. Harvey has met her burden of proving defamation. Ms. Halstead’s published statements regarding Ms. Harvey were designed to attack Ms. Harvey’s reputation both professionally and in the community at large. John Francis Hurley [168] John Hurley was an educator for over 30 years; 23 of those were spent at Cumberland Junior School. He is now retired. While at Cumberland Junior, Mr. Hurley taught woodworking and metal shop. [169] The allegations of defamation regarding Mr. Hurley can be grouped as follows: a) that Mr. Hurley turned a blind eye to the ongoing sexual harassment of a student; b) that Mr. Hurley professionally misconducted himself or was an unfit teacher by stashing and consuming alcohol in his classroom, ridiculing his students, and being incompetent in the classroom. [170] Ms. Halstead has published on the Internet that Mr. Hurley turned a blind eye to the fact that her daughter, a student in Mr. Hurley's shop class, was harassed by a group of boys throughout a school year. Mr. Hurley credibly denied that assertion. Ms. Halstead's published version of a 1989 incident surfaced twelve years after the fact: My oldest daughter is now 28. In grade nine she was the only girl in a shop class. One day a substitute teacher walked in and caught the boys in the class ganging up on her and pulling her pants down. He reported it to the Principal of Cumberland Junior School and the RCMP had to be called in because we found out following this exposure that the whole class had been doing this to her all year and her shop teacher, Mr. John Hurley had not stopped it. Melissa has never forgotten this. We had just moved to this community. She had epilepsy and learning disabilities and she was sexually harassed in the most disgusting of ways. She was a new student and too frightened to tell. How could she protect herself from the retaliation of a "whole class" of boys. Especially when the male teacher did nothing to protect her. She is still suffering from that abuse. [171] Mr. Hurley taught a wood-working class in the 1988/1989 school year in which Ms. Halstead's daughter was the only female student. Mr. Hurley was not teaching the day of the 1989 incident involving Ms. Halstead's daughter. Mr. Hurley testified that he was an advocate of having females in his shop classes. He testified he was aghast when his substitute teacher reported an incident to him involving students pulling down Ms. Halstead's daughter's pants. He immediately sought permission from the school administration to invite an RCMP officer to lecture the class on sexual harassment. As well he, quite sensitively in my view, asked Ms. Halstead (the student) in advance if she wished to be excused or wished to attend the lecture. [172] Ms. Halstead's published statements portray Mr. Hurley as a sexist, bad teacher who did not care if a female student was sexually harassed in his class. Such statements are damaging to any teacher, and particularly hurtful to Mr. Hurley who advocated for the participation of females in his shop classes, and who is the father of two girls. [173] Ms. Halstead's statement that Mr. Hurley turned a blind eye to the harassment of her daughter whom she described as epileptic, is a particularly offensive statement to Mr. Hurley. The imputation is that he is the sort of teacher and person who allows the people in his care who have disabilities to be harmed. Mr. Hurley testified that his daughter is profoundly disabled and suffers from grand mal epileptic seizures on a daily basis. He and his wife have cared for her on a daily basis for the last 23 years, and will continue to do so for as long as they live. It is clear that Mr. Hurley is especially conscientious in his life and in his work of caring for persons with disabilities. It bears noting that at no time did the Halsteads inform Mr. Hurley or the school administration that their daughter had epilepsy. Further, it is instructive that after the lecture by an RCMP officer, Mr. Hurley heard absolutely nothing further of the 1989 incident from the Halsteads or anyone else. [174] Mr. Irwin, the principal at Cumberland Junior School in 1989, testified. He recalled that Mr. Hurley immediately, actively and appropriately dealt with the single reported incident involved the Halsteads' daughter. He testified that following the lecture to the shop class by the RCMP officer, he heard absolutely nothing further from the Halsteads, other parents or the students. He does not believe the assertion that the conduct complained of continued throughout the school year. He described the allegation as "preposterous". [175] Mr. Irwin testified that Mr. Hurley was a strict teacher who would not have tolerated such behaviour. Further, Mr. Irwin testified that at no time was he told that Ms. Halstead’s daughter lived with epilepsy. [176] Mr. Jarvis, the vice-principal at Cumberland Junior School in 1989, echoed Mr. Irwin's evidence. Mr. Irwin and Mr. Jarvis, like Mr. Hurley, were credible witnesses whose evidence I accept without hesitation. [177] Further, and at the time of his retirement, Ms. Halstead published that Mr. Hurley stashed alcohol in the classroom, ridiculed students and was incompetent in the classroom, as follows: I would like to take a moment and wish a fond farewell to a retiring teacher who should not have ever been in a classroom in the first place. It was his last day today. I'd like to think one day these types of teachers that make kids miserable would all be retired but alas, it is not age that determines this but rather unsuitability and lack of proper training. … Now we will never find out if the "bottle" in his desk was for real. Despite the fact that absolutely everyone is convinced it is, I don't believe it. I think anyone that stashed booze in their classroom would have a much better disposition. I've never seen the man smile. I think it is just gossip to create an excuse for his incompetence. You see, being a drunk is no crime. It is not even considered unprofessional in this district. You can raise to the highest heights. However, being incompetent is something nobody will admit anyone has ever been in SD#71. Let us give thanks that he is retired and whether he is either one of those things will remain a mystery. Another sigh of relief for the district brass that they've gotten another one through all these years and not choked on what they've swept under the carpet. This is actually a two way celebration as this idiot has also served on the union executive. … Anyway lets hope this man is not on our on-call list, double dipping. I would like him to live a long happy life and perhaps one day when he is in an old folks home one of the students who had to endure the humiliation of being in his class can be in charge of his care. What goes around comes around. We all know these young people will one day be looking after all of us. [178] Mr. Hurley denied the allegations of professional misconduct alleged and published by Ms. Halstead. His denial was entirely supported by the evidence of his administrators to which I have earlier referred. Like Mr. Irwin, I must conclude that Ms. Halstead's allegations of Mr. Hurley's professional misconduct are preposterous and entirely without merit. On the evidence I heard, throughout his long career as an educator, Mr. Hurley conducted himself in an exemplary, professional fashion. [179] These statements by Ms. Halstead are particularly vicious because they were written on the date of Mr. Hurley's retirement, after he had dedicated over thirty years to the education system with an unblemished professional record. [180] Ms. Halstead’s published statements regarding Mr. Hurley attacked his reputation on both a professional and personal level. They were clearly intended to discredit him as a teacher and undermine his years of service in education. David Leonard (Len) Morrow [181] Mr. Morrow was a school trustee in the Comox Valley School District from 1990 to 2002. Prior to running as a candidate for School Board, Mr. Morrow, a chemical engineer with a Master's degree in Business Administration, owned and operated two thriving businesses in the Comox Valley, both of which employed a significant number of people. [182] When he retired from business in 1992, Mr. Morrow increasingly devoted his time and considerable energy to the Comox Valley community and in particular to the education and training of its young people. He was elected to the School Board for four consecutive terms. He chaired the Board from 1992 to 1996. Mr. Morrow was and continues to be an active volunteer in the Comox Valley. [183] The defamatory stings contained in the statements that Ms. Halstead published about Mr. Morrow can be categorized as follows: a) that he violated his oath of office, the Local Government Act, and the Criminal Code; b) that he is a bully and a harasser; c) that he is unprofessional in light of his romantic interest in an administrator of whom the Board of Trustees is the employer; and d) that he was corrupt and knowingly in a conflict of interest when in office. [184] Ms. Halstead posted Mr. Morrow’s name and photograph on the "B.C.’s Least Wanted" page of the GAFER website, and labelled him a "Bully Educator" and a "Least Wanted Educator". [185] Mr. Morrow testified that as Chair of the School Board he received volumes of correspondence from Ms. Halstead. I agree with Mr. Morrow's characterization that much of that correspondence which is in evidence and directed to Mr. Morrow was indeed outrageous and scandalous. [186] In an e-mail message published by Ms. Halstead to the media, to her Internet chat groups, to senior District staff, and to Mr. Morrow's MLA, she made the following statements: MR. MORROW, IN MY OPINION, HAS BROKEN HIS OATH OF OFFICE WHICH IS REQUIRED UNDER THE SCHOOL ACT, AS WELL AS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT UNDER ELECTION OFFENCES (INTIMIDATION) AND THE HARASSMENT POLICY #3065 R1 FOR SD #71 THAT STATES [capital letters in original] … A pattern of behaviour characterized by deliberate objectionable conduct or comment that demeans, belittles, intimidates … or … The exercise of power or authority in a manner which serves no legitimate work purpose and which a person ought reasonably to know is inappropriate, including such misuses of power or authority as intimidation, threats, coercion and blackmail … … In my opinion also Mr. Morrow has broken the law under criminal code: [Section 298 of Criminal Code set out (defamatory libel)] … I don't care if unions and administrators and trustees are comfortable with these types of criminal acts in the interest of politics. I am not and my family is not. [187] Ms. Halstead couched the first two statements as her "opinion". On the evidence, it appears that Ms. Halstead deliberately used the word "opinion" from time to time; a strat |