Opening arguments in the defamation trial between Carin Bondar and Barry Neufeld were heard in Chilliwack Law Courts Tuesday (Nov. 14).
The civil lawsuit alleges former school trustee Neufeld defamed Bondar, a school trustee, when he called her a BԪַstriptease artistBԪַ during an internet talk show in September 2022 broadcast by Action4Canada called the Empower Hour.
BԪַThis statement was false, injurious and not defensible as fair comment,BԪַ said BondarBԪַs lawyer, Susanna Quail, in her opening statements.
It was day one of a six-day trial in B.C. Supreme Court in Chilliwack presided over by Justice Michael Stephens.
BԪַDr. Bondar is not a striptease artist,BԪַ Quail said. BԪַShe is an accomplished science communicator and educator and a school trustee.
BԪַThe defendant asserts that Dr. Bondar had explicit and highly sexualized public performances widely famed by her on a YouTube channel over a number of years.
BԪַAnd we say the evidence will show that thatBԪַs not true,BԪַ the lawyer said.
The science education video in which Bondar appears to be swinging on a wrecking ball while scantily clad was not BԪַsexually charged entertainment,BԪַ Quail argued.
The video about evolution and natural selection was created by Bondar in 2014. It was a parody of the pop hit Wrecking Ball by Miley Cyrus, and BondarBԪַs video was called BԪַOrganisms do Evolve.BԪַ
In the video, Bondar is wearing what the pop superstar wore BԪַ a white tank top, underwear and boots. The video was filmed almost shot for shot in similar fashion, and for a brief moment on-screen, the plaintiff appeared nude in several frames.
BondarBԪַs PhD dissertation focused on animal reproduction and led to her ongoing interest in popular science education.
BԪַWhile her work often draws on human sexual behaviour, itBԪַs not actually about human sexuality,BԪַ Quail told the court.
BԪַItBԪַs about animal biology.BԪַ And it often uses pop culture to BԪַengage viewers,BԪַ she said.
The online content that Bondar has produced BԪַis mildly titillating in a silly way,BԪַ Quail said.
BondarBԪַs work has been featured on the Discovery Channel, the Science Channel, National Geographic, Scientific American and Animal One.
Quail said the court would determine if the striptease comment could be considered BԪַfair commentBԪַ and that would likely form the BԪַreal test of where this case lies.BԪַ
Bondar is alleging that BԪַMr. Neufeld defamed her by this comment and seeks damages,BԪַ the lawyer said, adding that evidence would show general and aggravated damages were appropriate.
Quail said Neufeld BԪַhas not only refused to retract or apologize for the remark, but repeated it and included it in his fundraising materials,BԪַ which she said was BԪַoutrageous and maliciousBԪַ in that it increased the plaintiffBԪַs mental distress.
In terms of the legal framework, three elements have to be established in a claim of defamation under the law, Quail said.
One of them focuses on injury to someoneBԪַs reputation, in that they BԪַtend to lower the plaintiffBԪַs reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person.BԪַ
BondarBԪַs lawyer said that all three would be BԪַwell-established.BԪַ
Neufeld has pleaded BԪַjustification,BԪַ among three defences, but Quail said the evidence will show BԪַhe knew full wellBԪַ that Bondar is not a striptease artist.
BԪַThis is simply not who Dr. Bondar is or what she has achieved,BԪַ the lawyer said.
The three defences Neufeld filed in connection with the suit were: justification, fair comment and qualified privilege.
BԪַNone of these defences can succeed,BԪַ Quail said.
She told the court Bondar would testify about BԪַhow hurtful and frustratingBԪַ it was to have her reputation as an accomplished science educator BԪַreplaced with an entirely fictional narrative that she is an underdog striptease artist, scrabbling her way to public office,BԪַ Quail said.
In conclusion, Quail said the libel case is BԪַnot about balancing the public interestBԪַ and it isnBԪַt about BԪַa political contestBԪַ over SOGI (sexual orientation and gender identity) 123.
BԪַThis case is only about defamation,BԪַ she said.
BԪַThis case isnBԪַt about Mr. NeufeldBԪַs personal political agenda. This trial is not a social movement showdown, itBԪַs not about culture wars.
BԪַThis is actually a very straightforward application of the law of defamation which exists to protect reputations from exactly the kind of harm Mr. Neufeld has inflicted and continues to do so.BԪַ
NeufeldBԪַs lawyer, Paul Jaffe, began his cross examination Tuesday, and it continued Wednesday. The trial is expected to run until at least Tuesday.
RELATED:
RELATED: