Beautiful Plains School Division sues mom for defamation over Facebook posts

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 24/05/2024 (497 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A Manitoba school division is suing a woman over alleged “defamatory” and “false” comments she made online accusing teachers of wrongdoing — an emerging issue one expert says the law has been slow to address.

Beautiful Plains School Division, which is headquartered in Neepawa, filed the lawsuit in the Court of King’s Bench against the woman on May 14. The woman has not yet filed a statement of defence and could not be reached for comment.

The division, in its court filings, said the woman is the mother of current and former students in the region.

She’s accused of “intentionally and/or maliciously” publishing untrue and defamatory statements about the division and its employees in videos and posts on her Facebook page multiple times between April 30 and May 13.

The court papers claim the woman accused teachers by name of being emotionally and mentally abusive, and sexualizing children.

The woman claimed a teacher shoved a child with autism, called another teacher a misogynist, and said a child compared her experience at the division’s school to residential school, the court papers allege.

The lawsuit, filed by David Simpson and Kelsey Yakimoski of Winnipeg law firm Fillmore Riley LLP, sought an injunction restraining the woman from publishing such online statements and ordering her to delete the existing comments, pending trial.

“The division says that the online defamatory statements are false and were made for the improper purpose of causing embarrassment and humiliation,” reads the claim.

The injunction was granted Wednesday by King’s Bench Justice Brian Bowman. The lawsuit also seeks damages and interest.

The associate dean of the University of Manitoba’s law school, Prof. Jennifer Schulz, said Canadian defamation law, which was designed to address statements made in publications and broadcasts or on the street, has not changed with the times.

“Defamation law has been slow to catch up with society and … online technology,” she said.

Schulz added she thinks the average person does not realize the legal risks of making defamatory statements online.

“I think people, when they are behind a screen, it provides that feeling of anonymity — like you would say things, post things that you probably wouldn’t say to somebody’s face,” Schulz said.

“I don’t think people are aware of the concerns … but the flip side is that there’s reason not to be super concerned, because it also has to be financially worth a defendant’s while to bother with the lawsuit.”

Schulz pointed to a 2016 British Columbia civil case that found a man made defamatory comments on Facebook and ordered him to pay more than $50,000 in damages to the plaintiff as an example in Canadian law. “It’s happening more and more,” Schulz said of online defamation and successful litigation over it.

She said, generally, plaintiffs in defamation cases are more focused on having damaging posts removed than on monetary compensation, saying alternative mediation is often a better option than civil court action.

The professor said the Charter right to free expression must also be considered.

“Is this just freedom of expression, saying ‘These teachers suck,’ or is it rising to the level of discrediting their reputation such that it’s defamation?”

The school division, alerted to the initial videos, asked the woman to remove them on about May 2, but she said she would not stop, a motion brief filed in support of the injunction said.

The division’s lawyers then contacted the woman on May 3, to which she replied she deleted the video and reposted it without the “emotional charge,” according to the court papers.

The woman allegedly continued to make disparaging videos and posts about the division and its employees on May 3, 7, 9 and 13, the brief said.

The division, in its court papers, said it hoped the statement of claim would lead the woman to cease and desist, but she continued.

On May 17, the motion brief says, the woman uploaded another video indicating she was going to stop posting on social media and would instead contact the premier’s office.

She deleted five of the videos while two videos and four written posts remained. She also allegedly posted two private videos accessible only by her friends that same day.

In those videos, she mentioned principals and teachers and accused a school of being at fault for a “number of deaths” in the community as well as a student’s suicide, the motion brief claims.

On May 21, according to the motion brief, the woman emailed the division and claimed to have taken down all the videos and posts and “provided her word” she wouldn’t make similar posts in the future.

Multiple posts and videos remained online at the time of the brief filing. The division claims its reputation has been damaged and would continue to suffer damage as long as the videos remain online.

erik.pindera@freepress.mb.ca